Looks like Day 1 on the good aspect of the Broadcasting Section was too quiet. I am not sure if that is because there is nothing good about it or maybe fatigue has just kicked in. Either way, today we want to review the so called bad aspects. They have been in the press/public domain for the last 4weeks but here is my take of the top three. 1. that the retained 'draconian' clause 88 gives unrestricted powers to the two ministers (Internal Security and Information Ministers) and their regulatory (CCK) appointees. These Powers enable them to declare an emergency and raid media houses. The beef is that these powers are likely to be abused particularly because of the heavy Govt composition of the Regulatory Authorities who would likely serve their appointing authority (Executive) rather than the common good (Public) 2. that the Content Regulation (Programming Code) aspects is also flawed in that it is ONLY the Information Minister and his appointees who can decide what is prohibited and what is not, what should go on air and at what time. 3. that a Signal Distribution Monopoly would be enforced given that current broadcasters would need to channel their transmission through a licensed signal distributor i.e. dismantle their current distribution infrastructure in the likely event that they are not the designated signal distributor. Any more? Feel free to clarify as well where I may have errored in the interpretation. Tomorrow we shall look at the proposed interventions once we are agreed on the problems/issues. walu.
Before you close the session Walu, i attended the Public forum at Hilton which was graced by our learned friends, the issues you are raising are the ones which were tabled by the lawyers, it was interested to note the following According to Ms Priscilla Nyokabi of the ICJ she partly supports section 88 because it is a "detterent clause", she gave an example of Radio Rwanda and how those fellows continued boadcasting hate because there was no law to indict them (I hope that is the right term) According to Mr Mbugua Mureithi a human rights lawyer the genesis of the infamous communications act of 1998 was to manage public assets (it was to oversee the split of KP&TC) and distribute the assets to CCK, PCK, and TKL, he says this had nothing to do with press freedom. He said the new law was ambiguous, lacked clarity and showed weaknesses in the law making processes beacause people did not understand why the communications act was created in the first place.. Our learned friends were of the opinion that broadcasting is a very complex field a fct alluded to by our PS. They were of the opinion that broadcasting needs its own piece of legislation instead of lumping it together with ICT because both fields were complex and quite diverse. In effect they were proposing that ICT should have its own legislation whereas boadcasting should also be handled separately. According to a member of the ICJ in reference to section 5a which talks about independence of CCK, CCK is a quasi Judicial body. They were of the opinion that for it to be considered independent the commissioners should be elected by parliament. They in turn should elect their own Chairman. On Media there was consensus that regulation of the media was necessary but that it should be done properly and professionaly as a positive intervention to media freedom. Finally the deputy speaker of the house challenged members to engage in a constructive debate rather than complain. I Hope i have touched on the key issues discussed maybe Alex Gakuru, Engineer Rege or bwana PS can add any comments. On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 8:56 AM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Looks like Day 1 on the good aspect of the Broadcasting Section was too quiet. I am not sure if that is because there is nothing good about it or maybe fatigue has just kicked in.
Either way, today we want to review the so called bad aspects. They have been in the press/public domain for the last 4weeks but here is my take of the top three.
1. that the retained 'draconian' clause 88 gives unrestricted powers to the two ministers (Internal Security and Information Ministers) and their regulatory (CCK) appointees. These Powers enable them to declare an emergency and raid media houses. The beef is that these powers are likely to be abused particularly because of the heavy Govt composition of the Regulatory Authorities who would likely serve their appointing authority (Executive) rather than the common good (Public)
2. that the Content Regulation (Programming Code) aspects is also flawed in that it is ONLY the Information Minister and his appointees who can decide what is prohibited and what is not, what should go on air and at what time.
3. that a Signal Distribution Monopoly would be enforced given that current broadcasters would need to channel their transmission through a licensed signal distributor i.e. dismantle their current distribution infrastructure in the likely event that they are not the designated signal distributor.
Any more? Feel free to clarify as well where I may have errored in the interpretation. Tomorrow we shall look at the proposed interventions once we are agreed on the problems/issues.
walu.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: otieno.barrack@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail....
-- Barrack O. Otieno ISSEN CONSULTING Tel: +254721325277 +254726544442 +254733206359 www.issenconsult.com http://projectdiscovery.or.ke To give up the task of reforming society is to give up ones responsibility as a free man. Alan Paton, South Africa
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
Finally the deputy speaker of the house challenged members to engage in a constructive debate rather than complain. I Hope i have touched on the key issues discussed maybe Alex Gakuru, Engineer Rege or bwana PS can add any comments.
Barrack: Let me not to comment on specifics, except that democracy is such a complex thing...
I agree Alex, if i may use the deputy speakers words, the Kenya Communication amendment Act is "Ipso Facto", did i get that right?. I lost my bearing....... *Ipso Facto* is a Latin <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin> phrase, directly translated as "by the fact itself," which means that a certain effect is a *direct* consequence of the action in question, instead of being brought about by a subsequent action such as the verdict of a tribunal. On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Gakuru Alex <alexgakuru.lists@gmail.com>wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
Finally the deputy speaker of the house challenged members to engage in a constructive debate rather than complain. I Hope i have touched on the key issues discussed maybe Alex Gakuru, Engineer Rege or bwana PS can add any comments.
Barrack: Let me not to comment on specifics, except that democracy is such a complex thing...
-- Barrack O. Otieno ISSEN CONSULTING Tel: +254721325277 +254726544442 +254733206359 www.issenconsult.com http://projectdiscovery.or.ke To give up the task of reforming society is to give up ones responsibility as a free man. Alan Paton, South Africa
Thanx for the earlier contributions of Faima and Vincent, and more so the recent input from the Hilton Public forum as reported by Barrack. I will now go ahead and post the proposed amendments with regard to the issues/problems raised yesterday. 1. that the retained 'draconian' clause 88 gives unrestricted powers to the two ministers (Internal Security and Information Ministers) and their regulatory (CCK) appointees. These Powers enable them to declare an emergency and raid media houses. The beef is that these powers are likely to be abused particularly because of the heavy Govt composition of the Regulatory Authorities who would likely serve their appointing authority (Executive) rather than the common good (Public) Recommendation 1: Delete it or ensure that the Regulatory Authority (CCK) is farily balanced in term of Board representation (i.e Govt, Media, Civil Society, Academia, etc). All proposed Board Members must be vetted by Parliament. 2. that the Content Regulation (Programming Code) aspects is also flawed in that it is ONLY the Information Minister and his appointees who can decide what is prohibited and what is not, what should go on air and at what time. Recommendation 2: This bit should be taken to the Media Council, whose Act (Media Council Act) should be strengthened to give the Media Council some teeth (enforcement) capabilities. 3. that a Signal Distribution Monopoly would be enforced given that current broadcasters would need to channel their transmission through a licensed signal distributor i.e. dismantle their current distribution infrastructure in the likely event that they are not the designated signal distributor. Recommendation: ???-Havent picked up this bit of recommendation, someone could fill in?. Feel free to make belated contributions on the previous themes as well. Tomorrow we enter into the IT section and we shall stick to the same format i.e. dissect the Good, the Bad and (the Ugly?) Recommendations. walu.
Thanx for the earlier contributions of Faima and Vincent, and more so the recent input from the Hilton Public forum as reported by Barrack. I will now go ahead and post the proposed amendments with regard to the issues/problems raised yesterday. 1. that the retained 'draconian' clause 88 gives unrestricted powers to the two ministers (Internal Security and Information Ministers) and their regulatory (CCK) appointees. These Powers enable them to declare an emergency and raid media houses. The beef is that these powers are likely to be abused particularly because of the heavy Govt composition of the Regulatory Authorities who would likely serve their appointing authority (Executive) rather than the common good (Public) Recommendation 1: Delete it or ensure that the Regulatory Authority (CCK) is farily balanced in term of Board representation (i.e Govt, Media, Civil Society, Academia, etc). All proposed Board Members must be vetted by Parliament. 2. that the Content Regulation (Programming Code) aspects is also flawed in that it is ONLY the Information Minister and his appointees who can decide what is prohibited and what is not, what should go on air and at what time. Recommendation 2: This bit should be taken to the Media Council, whose Act (Media Council Act) should be strengthened to give the Media Council some teeth (enforcement) capabilities. 3. that a Signal Distribution Monopoly would be enforced given that current broadcasters would need to channel their transmission through a licensed signal distributor i.e. dismantle their current distribution infrastructure in the likely event that they are not the designated signal distributor. Recommendation: ???-Havent picked up this bit of recommendation, someone could fill in?. Feel free to make belated contributions on the previous themes as well. Tomorrow we enter into the IT section and we shall stick to the same format i.e. dissect the Good, the Bad and (the Ugly?) Recommendations. walu.
I have some slightly different views regarding section 88 Remembering that fact that this section can only be activated during a state of emergency, let us remind ourselves that since the infancy of this nation there has only been a state of emergency declared twice (in over 50 years). Why? This is because there are other laws, including the constitution, that state, when and how a state of emergency ought to be declared. These lay out the specific types of circumstances that MUST prevail before such a state is declared, and also who has the authority and mandate to declare such a state. Let us remind ourselves that during a state of emergency we have the equivalent of martial law - and the millitary basically have a carte blanche to take whatever measures necesarry to preserve the peace. The reason I say this is because whether section 88 exists or not, if a state of emergency is declared, broadcasters will be the first to receive urgent attention to ensure controlled dissemination of information. In fact, if the circumstances that would necessitate a state of emergency took place it is unlikely that any of the journalists or media owners would venture further than their window to peep outside and see if everything is OK. My point is, let us not get too emotional and overreactionary on this issue - let us keep in sight the greater goals that the KCA Amendments Act intends to achieve and let's get to work. Regards, Brian On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:05 AM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanx for the earlier contributions of Faima and Vincent, and more so the recent input from the Hilton Public forum as reported by Barrack. I will now go ahead and post the proposed amendments with regard to the issues/problems raised yesterday.
1. that the retained 'draconian' clause 88 gives unrestricted powers to the two ministers (Internal Security and Information Ministers) and their regulatory (CCK) appointees. These Powers enable them to declare an emergency and raid media houses. The beef is that these powers are likely to be abused particularly because of the heavy Govt composition of the Regulatory Authorities who would likely serve their appointing authority (Executive) rather than the common good (Public)
Recommendation 1: Delete it or ensure that the Regulatory Authority (CCK) is farily balanced in term of Board representation (i.e Govt, Media, Civil Society, Academia, etc). All proposed Board Members must be vetted by Parliament.
2. that the Content Regulation (Programming Code) aspects is also flawed in that it is ONLY the Information Minister and his appointees who can decide what is prohibited and what is not, what should go on air and at what time.
Recommendation 2: This bit should be taken to the Media Council, whose Act (Media Council Act) should be strengthened to give the Media Council some teeth (enforcement) capabilities.
3. that a Signal Distribution Monopoly would be enforced given that current broadcasters would need to channel their transmission through a licensed signal distributor i.e. dismantle their current distribution infrastructure in the likely event that they are not the designated signal distributor.
Recommendation: ???-Havent picked up this bit of recommendation, someone could fill in?.
Feel free to make belated contributions on the previous themes as well. Tomorrow we enter into the IT section and we shall stick to the same format i.e. dissect the Good, the Bad and (the Ugly?) Recommendations.
walu.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: blongwe@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com
-- Brian Munyao Longwe e-mail: blongwe@gmail.com cell: + 254 722 518 744 blog : http://zinjlog.blogspot.com meta-blog: http://mashilingi.blogspot.com
Brian, I thought you are a nice guy, but now I am beginning to think that when you run for president (of malawi? hahaha!) i will not vote for you because i can detect a dictarotial streak in your genes (smile). Now let me turn to your views, which i hold to be fundamentally wrong and misguided. To start with, please stop giving sympathetic interpretations to a bad law. The law is read in the letter (and the spirit left to the courts). May be you have not suffered injustice and that is why you espouse such optimism about Sect 88. If you have read that law, please re-read it to see the venom it has. It can be used arbitrarily and has no respect to private property or the presumption of innocence of the victim of its application. There are many reasons why i think it is bad law but i will be brief. The law says that the Minister can declare a public emergency (NOTE: it has NOTHING to do with the State of Emergency provided for in the Constitution!).Anything can be a public emergency, including houseflies at city market. And all that is required is for the minister to determine it is, and for the purposes of a law, issue a certificate do declaring, and bar communication between people. What is worse is that if for instance the minister is wrong and he cannot return your equipment (at the end of the so-called emergency), he alone will determine the value to compensate you! Now, is that fair? What happened to the right to be heard? Due process? But that is not grave perhaps. It is your wrong interpretation of that law that prompts me to respond: The law, as i havbe stated above, does not come into force during the period when a State of Emergency has been declared by the President as laid out under the constitution sect 83. NO, that section brings into force provisions of section 57 (preservation of public security act). And what would you say Michuki used when he authorised the attack and seizure of KTN /Standard Group equipment on the pretext that the group had infomration prejudicial to state security (his socks were torn, perhaps)? As you may have noticed, he has never produced the information, returned the seized equipment, or compensated them. And as you well know there was no state of emergency. Good thing is he never cited the law he employed. Up to now. Earlier last year, there was no stat eof emergency declared when the Minister fo Internal security invoked sect 88 to ban live boradcasting. As you well know, the ministry recapitulated and dropped the ban when we took them to court. Why? Because it was illegal! Finally,let me inform you and others that that section, in fact dos not deal with boradcasting stations but those other communication installations and short wave radio (call them "over-over") used by security firms, G4, Cartrack, Taxis and other courier services. Please do not justify what is patently wrong. For us in the media, we don't want such arbitrary actions that threatene our lives and those who invest. So we havbe asked that those provisions apply to you if you want or so love to keep them. For those who have not read, I am reproducing that offending sect below: 88. On the declaration of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety and tranquility, the Minister for the time being responsible for internal security may, by order in writing, direct any officer duly authorized in their behalf, to take temporary possession of any telecommunication apparatus or any radio communication station or apparatus within Kenya, and – (d) in the case of radio communication, that any communication or class of communication shall or shall not be emitted from any radio communication taken under this section; or (e) in the case of telecommunication, that any communication within Kenya from any person or class of persons relating to any particular subject shall be intercepted and disclosed to such person as may be specified in the direction; or (f) in the case of postal services, that any postal article or class or description of postal article in the course of transmission by post within Kenya shall be intercepted or detained or shall be delivered to any officer mentioned in the order or shall be disposed of in such manner as the Minster may direct. (2) A certificate signed by the Minster for the time being responsible for internal security shall be conclusive proof of the existence of a public emergency, or that any act done under subsection (1) was done in the public safety or tranquility. (3) A telecommunication apparatus constructed, maintained or operated by any person within Kenya or any postal article which is sized by any officer duly authorized under subsection (1) (a) shall be returned to the telecommunication operator at the end of the emergency or where such apparatus or article is not returned, full compensation in respect thereof, to be determined by the Minster, shall be paid to the owner. (4) A person aggrieved by a decision of the Minster under subsection (3) as to the compensation payable in respect of anything seized under this section may appeal to the High Court within fourteen days of such decision. David --- On Wed, 1/14/09, Brian Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Brian Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-KCA 2008-Broadcasting-The Recommendations To: dmakali@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2009, 2:22 AM I have some slightly different views regarding section 88
Remembering that fact that this section can only be activated during a state of emergency, let us remind ourselves that since the infancy of this nation there has only been a state of emergency declared twice (in over 50 years).
Why?
This is because there are other laws, including the constitution, that state, when and how a state of emergency ought to be declared. These lay out the specific types of circumstances that MUST prevail before such a state is declared, and also who has the authority and mandate to declare such a state.
Let us remind ourselves that during a state of emergency we have the equivalent of martial law - and the millitary basically have a carte blanche to take whatever measures necesarry to preserve the peace.
The reason I say this is because whether section 88 exists or not, if a state of emergency is declared, broadcasters will be the first to receive urgent attention to ensure controlled dissemination of information.
In fact, if the circumstances that would necessitate a state of emergency took place it is unlikely that any of the journalists or media owners would venture further than their window to peep outside and see if everything is OK.
My point is, let us not get too emotional and overreactionary on this issue - let us keep in sight the greater goals that the KCA Amendments Act intends to achieve and let's get to work.
Regards,
Brian
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:05 AM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanx for the earlier contributions of Faima and Vincent, and more so the recent input from the Hilton Public forum as reported by Barrack. I will now go ahead and post the proposed amendments with regard to the issues/problems raised yesterday.
1. that the retained 'draconian' clause 88 gives unrestricted powers to the two ministers (Internal Security and Information Ministers) and their regulatory (CCK) appointees. These Powers enable them to declare an emergency and raid media houses. The beef is that these powers are likely to be abused particularly because of the heavy Govt composition of the Regulatory Authorities who would likely serve their appointing authority (Executive) rather than the common good (Public)
Recommendation 1: Delete it or ensure that the Regulatory Authority (CCK) is farily balanced in term of Board representation (i.e Govt, Media, Civil Society, Academia, etc). All proposed Board Members must be vetted by Parliament.
2. that the Content Regulation (Programming Code) aspects is also flawed in that it is ONLY the Information Minister and his appointees who can decide what is prohibited and what is not, what should go on air and at what time.
Recommendation 2: This bit should be taken to the Media Council, whose Act (Media Council Act) should be strengthened to give the Media Council some teeth (enforcement) capabilities.
3. that a Signal Distribution Monopoly would be enforced given that current broadcasters would need to channel their transmission through a licensed signal distributor i.e. dismantle their current distribution infrastructure in the likely event that they are not the designated signal distributor.
Recommendation: ???-Havent picked up this bit of recommendation, someone could fill in?.
Feel free to make belated contributions on the previous themes as well. Tomorrow we enter into the IT section and we shall stick to the same format i.e. dissect the Good, the Bad and (the Ugly?) Recommendations.
walu.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: blongwe@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com
-- Brian Munyao Longwe e-mail: blongwe@gmail.com cell: + 254 722 518 744 blog : http://zinjlog.blogspot.com meta-blog: http://mashilingi.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: dmakali@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/dmakali%40yahoo.com
Let us not assume that Sec. 88 affects only the media. Not at all. This bad law has effect across the board. Th whole Communication Act or the whole ICT for that matter is affected, including telecommunications or communications apparatus or equipment. I would wish to remind some of us who have been in this industry for over a decade, not to not forget that, it was illegal to own a fax machine in this country at one time, unless with express approval from state house. The ownership of mobile phone was illegal unless approved by a battalion of state security agents, and only those authorized were to have it in their possessions. The computer terminals were not spared either. It was illegal to have a VSAT TV -Receive Only terminal on top of your roof. Etc. Etc. It is therefore only right to fight to remove the draconian clause from this law, given the chance. I fully support the Media Group in their fight. The regulations of cause need to be there, because the rules of the game have to be there, and a referee must be there in the field. There are quite a number of positive contributions and suggestions which have come up that, such as making the media council effective to be the referee of some kind. VK -----Original Message----- From: kictanet-bounces+volunga=safaricom.co.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+volunga=safaricom.co.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of David Makali Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 4:57 PM To: Vitalis Olunga Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: [kictanet] Makali's response to brian longwe: KCA2008-Broadcasting-The Recommendations Brian, I thought you are a nice guy, but now I am beginning to think that when you run for president (of malawi? hahaha!) i will not vote for you because i can detect a dictarotial streak in your genes (smile). Now let me turn to your views, which i hold to be fundamentally wrong and misguided. To start with, please stop giving sympathetic interpretations to a bad law. The law is read in the letter (and the spirit left to the courts). May be you have not suffered injustice and that is why you espouse such optimism about Sect 88. If you have read that law, please re-read it to see the venom it has. It can be used arbitrarily and has no respect to private property or the presumption of innocence of the victim of its application. There are many reasons why i think it is bad law but i will be brief. The law says that the Minister can declare a public emergency (NOTE: it has NOTHING to do with the State of Emergency provided for in the Constitution!).Anything can be a public emergency, including houseflies at city market. And all that is required is for the minister to determine it is, and for the purposes of a law, issue a certificate do declaring, and bar communication between people. What is worse is that if for instance the minister is wrong and he cannot return your equipment (at the end of the so-called emergency), he alone will determine the value to compensate you! Now, is that fair? What happened to the right to be heard? Due process? But that is not grave perhaps. It is your wrong interpretation of that law that prompts me to respond: The law, as i havbe stated above, does not come into force during the period when a State of Emergency has been declared by the President as laid out under the constitution sect 83. NO, that section brings into force provisions of section 57 (preservation of public security act). And what would you say Michuki used when he authorised the attack and seizure of KTN /Standard Group equipment on the pretext that the group had infomration prejudicial to state security (his socks were torn, perhaps)? As you may have noticed, he has never produced the information, returned the seized equipment, or compensated them. And as you well know there was no state of emergency. Good thing is he never cited the law he employed. Up to now. Earlier last year, there was no stat eof emergency declared when the Minister fo Internal security invoked sect 88 to ban live boradcasting. As you well know, the ministry recapitulated and dropped the ban when we took them to court. Why? Because it was illegal! Finally,let me inform you and others that that section, in fact dos not deal with boradcasting stations but those other communication installations and short wave radio (call them "over-over") used by security firms, G4, Cartrack, Taxis and other courier services. Please do not justify what is patently wrong. For us in the media, we don't want such arbitrary actions that threatene our lives and those who invest. So we havbe asked that those provisions apply to you if you want or so love to keep them. For those who have not read, I am reproducing that offending sect below: 88. On the declaration of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety and tranquility, the Minister for the time being responsible for internal security may, by order in writing, direct any officer duly authorized in their behalf, to take temporary possession of any telecommunication apparatus or any radio communication station or apparatus within Kenya, and – (d) in the case of radio communication, that any communication or class of communication shall or shall not be emitted from any radio communication taken under this section; or (e) in the case of telecommunication, that any communication within Kenya from any person or class of persons relating to any particular subject shall be intercepted and disclosed to such person as may be specified in the direction; or (f) in the case of postal services, that any postal article or class or description of postal article in the course of transmission by post within Kenya shall be intercepted or detained or shall be delivered to any officer mentioned in the order or shall be disposed of in such manner as the Minster may direct. (2) A certificate signed by the Minster for the time being responsible for internal security shall be conclusive proof of the existence of a public emergency, or that any act done under subsection (1) was done in the public safety or tranquility. (3) A telecommunication apparatus constructed, maintained or operated by any person within Kenya or any postal article which is sized by any officer duly authorized under subsection (1) (a) shall be returned to the telecommunication operator at the end of the emergency or where such apparatus or article is not returned, full compensation in respect thereof, to be determined by the Minster, shall be paid to the owner. (4) A person aggrieved by a decision of the Minster under subsection (3) as to the compensation payable in respect of anything seized under this section may appeal to the High Court within fourteen days of such decision. David --- On Wed, 1/14/09, Brian Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Brian Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-KCA 2008-Broadcasting-The Recommendations To: dmakali@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2009, 2:22 AM I have some slightly different views regarding section 88
Remembering that fact that this section can only be activated during a state of emergency, let us remind ourselves that since the infancy of this nation there has only been a state of emergency declared twice (in over 50 years).
Why?
This is because there are other laws, including the constitution, that state, when and how a state of emergency ought to be declared. These lay out the specific types of circumstances that MUST prevail before such a state is declared, and also who has the authority and mandate to declare such a state.
Let us remind ourselves that during a state of emergency we have the equivalent of martial law - and the millitary basically have a carte blanche to take whatever measures necesarry to preserve the peace.
The reason I say this is because whether section 88 exists or not, if a state of emergency is declared, broadcasters will be the first to receive urgent attention to ensure controlled dissemination of information.
In fact, if the circumstances that would necessitate a state of emergency took place it is unlikely that any of the journalists or media owners would venture further than their window to peep outside and see if everything is OK.
My point is, let us not get too emotional and overreactionary on this issue - let us keep in sight the greater goals that the KCA Amendments Act intends to achieve and let's get to work.
Regards,
Brian
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:05 AM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanx for the earlier contributions of Faima and Vincent, and more so the recent input from the Hilton Public forum as reported by Barrack. I will now go ahead and post the proposed amendments with regard to the issues/problems raised yesterday.
1. that the retained 'draconian' clause 88 gives unrestricted powers to the two ministers (Internal Security and Information Ministers) and their regulatory (CCK) appointees. These Powers enable them to declare an emergency and raid media houses. The beef is that these powers are likely to be abused particularly because of the heavy Govt composition of the Regulatory Authorities who would likely serve their appointing authority (Executive) rather than the common good (Public)
Recommendation 1: Delete it or ensure that the Regulatory Authority (CCK) is farily balanced in term of Board representation (i.e Govt, Media, Civil Society, Academia, etc). All proposed Board Members must be vetted by Parliament.
2. that the Content Regulation (Programming Code) aspects is also flawed in that it is ONLY the Information Minister and his appointees who can decide what is prohibited and what is not, what should go on air and at what time.
Recommendation 2: This bit should be taken to the Media Council, whose Act (Media Council Act) should be strengthened to give the Media Council some teeth (enforcement) capabilities.
3. that a Signal Distribution Monopoly would be enforced given that current broadcasters would need to channel their transmission through a licensed signal distributor i.e. dismantle their current distribution infrastructure in the likely event that they are not the designated signal distributor.
Recommendation: ???-Havent picked up this bit of recommendation, someone could fill in?.
Feel free to make belated contributions on the previous themes as well. Tomorrow we enter into the IT section and we shall stick to the same format i.e. dissect the Good, the Bad and (the Ugly?) Recommendations.
walu.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: blongwe@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com
-- Brian Munyao Longwe e-mail: blongwe@gmail.com cell: + 254 722 518 744 blog : http://zinjlog.blogspot.com meta-blog: http://mashilingi.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: dmakali@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/dmakali%40yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: VOlunga@safaricom.co.ke Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/volunga%40safaricom.co.... ##################################################################################### NOTE: The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the named addressee. Emails are susceptible to alteration and their integrity cannot be guaranteed. Safaricom Limited does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this email if the same is found to have been altered or manipulated. The contents and opinions expressed in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Safaricom Limited. Safaricom Limited disclaims any liability to the fullest extent permissible by law for any consequences that may arise from the contents of this email including but not limited to personal opinions, malicious and/or defamatory information and data/codes that may compromise or damage the integrity of the recipient�s information technology systems. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and immediately delete this email from your system.Unless expressly stated by a duly authorised officer of Safaricom Limited nothing contained in this email message shall be construed as being an offer to contract or an acceptance of an offer capable of constituting a contract between Safaricom Limited and any recipient(s) of this email. #####################################################################################
in-line responses,,, On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Vitalis Olunga <VOlunga@safaricom.co.ke> wrote:
Let us not assume that Sec. 88 affects only the media. Not at all. This bad law has effect across the board. Th whole Communication Act or the whole ICT for that matter is affected, including telecommunications or communications apparatus or equipment. I would wish to remind some of us who have been in this industry for over a decade, not to not forget that, it was illegal to own a fax machine in this country at one time, unless with express approval from state house. The ownership of mobile phone was illegal unless approved by a battalion of state security agents, and only those authorized were to have it in their possessions. The computer terminals were not spared either. It was illegal to have a VSAT TV -Receive Only terminal on top of your roof. Etc. Etc. It is therefore only right to fight to remove the draconian clause from this law, given the chance. I fully support the Media Group in their fight.
A true historical account and you re-emphasize how inter-connected all information and communications industries are. Come Digital Broadcasting, that line will get more greyed out (read: already CCK Unified Licensing Framework). Oppositely, there are instances of genuine structural Public Interest threat in related to consuming harmful information, expressing, or facilitating its flow different from the "general" National State of Emergency - because we all know what SMS and broadcasts did to us in the recent past... There must a very tough legal provision that deters powerful information handlers from the temptation of using national frequencies assets to achieve private interests harmful to Public Interest. The minister should invoke this clause implementation upon an agreed decision by a committee - lessens possibility of abuse by the powers-that-be of the day. Oh no! I also find invading premises and confiscating private equipment rather crude where there are technological ways to achieve structural harmful information flow. If not deleted, Section 88 could be "upgraded" (phrased or worded better), for example, allow minister on committee decision to jam specific broadcast frequencies, jam mobile phone frequencies (like they did when Bill Clinton visited Tanzania) etc,, for the duration of the emergency. What would be the problem with that?
The regulations of cause need to be there, because the rules of the game have to be there, and a referee must be there in the field. There are quite a number of positive contributions and suggestions which have come up that, such as making the media council effective to be the referee of some kind.
Content regulation and professionalism, benefits journalists, and promote local content quality. Having it regulated by a strengthened Media Council is perfect. Always supported self-regulation when it does not mean private entities establishing "a basement corner desk" and says there you are, regulating ourselves but at the basement:) thus I urge you, all to support our proposal for the attached.It's essentially meant to make CCK's successful "Chukua Hatua" a permanent self-regulation legal function for the benefit of all information and communications consumers thus pro-Public Interest. Thank you. Alex
What should be done in the case of a broadcast station airing what would be considered incitement, hate speech and so on as has been the case before? 1. Should we have a law that demands that the Minister first runs to court? 2. Shouldn't we be asking for amendment of Section 88 to be more specific and restrictive so that the Minister's decision will not be personal, malicious or driven by vendetta? 3. Would a decision by Cabinet suffice?..or by a Committee of Ministers (Security + Information + Another + Another)? To address your concerns, a system less prone to abuse should be the request of the media...not a total excemption from Sections that apply to others. We in the media are not as special as some of us pretend we are. Wainaina On 1/14/09, David Makali <dmakali@yahoo.com> wrote:
Brian, I thought you are a nice guy, but now I am beginning to think that when you run for president (of malawi? hahaha!) i will not vote for you because i can detect a dictarotial streak in your genes (smile). Now let me turn to your views, which i hold to be fundamentally wrong and misguided. To start with, please stop giving sympathetic interpretations to a bad law. The law is read in the letter (and the spirit left to the courts). May be you have not suffered injustice and that is why you espouse such optimism about Sect 88. If you have read that law, please re-read it to see the venom it has. It can be used arbitrarily and has no respect to private property or the presumption of innocence of the victim of its application.
There are many reasons why i think it is bad law but i will be brief. The law says that the Minister can declare a public emergency (NOTE: it has NOTHING to do with the State of Emergency provided for in the Constitution!).Anything can be a public emergency, including houseflies at city market. And all that is required is for the minister to determine it is, and for the purposes of a law, issue a certificate do declaring, and bar communication between people. What is worse is that if for instance the minister is wrong and he cannot return your equipment (at the end of the so-called emergency), he alone will determine the value to compensate you! Now, is that fair? What happened to the right to be heard? Due process? But that is not grave perhaps. It is your wrong interpretation of that law that prompts me to respond: The law, as i havbe stated above, does not come into force during the period when a State of Emergency has been declared by the President as laid out under the constitution sect 83. NO, that section brings into force provisions of section 57 (preservation of public security act). And what would you say Michuki used when he authorised the attack and seizure of KTN /Standard Group equipment on the pretext that the group had infomration prejudicial to state security (his socks were torn, perhaps)? As you may have noticed, he has never produced the information, returned the seized equipment, or compensated them. And as you well know there was no state of emergency. Good thing is he never cited the law he employed. Up to now. Earlier last year, there was no stat eof emergency declared when the Minister fo Internal security invoked sect 88 to ban live boradcasting. As you well know, the ministry recapitulated and dropped the ban when we took them to court. Why? Because it was illegal! Finally,let me inform you and others that that section, in fact dos not deal with boradcasting stations but those other communication installations and short wave radio (call them "over-over") used by security firms, G4, Cartrack, Taxis and other courier services. Please do not justify what is patently wrong. For us in the media, we don't want such arbitrary actions that threatene our lives and those who invest. So we havbe asked that those provisions apply to you if you want or so love to keep them.
For those who have not read, I am reproducing that offending sect below:
88. On the declaration of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety and tranquility, the Minister for the time being responsible for internal security may, by order in writing, direct any officer duly authorized in their behalf, to take temporary possession of any telecommunication apparatus or any radio communication station or apparatus within Kenya, and –
(d) in the case of radio communication, that any communication or class of communication shall or shall not be emitted from any radio communication taken under this section; or
(e) in the case of telecommunication, that any communication within Kenya from any person or class of persons relating to any particular subject shall be intercepted and disclosed to such person as may be specified in the direction; or
(f) in the case of postal services, that any postal article or class or description of postal article in the course of transmission by post within Kenya shall be intercepted or detained or shall be delivered to any officer mentioned in the order or shall be disposed of in such manner as the Minster may direct.
(2) A certificate signed by the Minster for the time being responsible for internal security shall be conclusive proof of the existence of a public emergency, or that any act done under subsection (1) was done in the public safety or tranquility.
(3) A telecommunication apparatus constructed, maintained or operated by any person within Kenya or any postal article which is sized by any officer duly authorized under subsection (1) (a) shall be returned to the telecommunication operator at the end of the emergency or where such apparatus or article is not returned, full compensation in respect thereof, to be determined by the Minster, shall be paid to the owner.
(4) A person aggrieved by a decision of the Minster under subsection (3) as to the compensation payable in respect of anything seized under this section may appeal to the High Court within fourteen days of such decision.
David
--- On Wed, 1/14/09, Brian Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Brian Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-KCA 2008-Broadcasting-The Recommendations To: dmakali@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2009, 2:22 AM I have some slightly different views regarding section 88
Remembering that fact that this section can only be activated during a state of emergency, let us remind ourselves that since the infancy of this nation there has only been a state of emergency declared twice (in over 50 years).
Why?
This is because there are other laws, including the constitution, that state, when and how a state of emergency ought to be declared. These lay out the specific types of circumstances that MUST prevail before such a state is declared, and also who has the authority and mandate to declare such a state.
Let us remind ourselves that during a state of emergency we have the equivalent of martial law - and the millitary basically have a carte blanche to take whatever measures necesarry to preserve the peace.
The reason I say this is because whether section 88 exists or not, if a state of emergency is declared, broadcasters will be the first to receive urgent attention to ensure controlled dissemination of information.
In fact, if the circumstances that would necessitate a state of emergency took place it is unlikely that any of the journalists or media owners would venture further than their window to peep outside and see if everything is OK.
My point is, let us not get too emotional and overreactionary on this issue - let us keep in sight the greater goals that the KCA Amendments Act intends to achieve and let's get to work.
Regards,
Brian
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:05 AM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanx for the earlier contributions of Faima and Vincent, and more so the recent input from the Hilton Public forum as reported by Barrack. I will now go ahead and post the proposed amendments with regard to the issues/problems raised yesterday.
1. that the retained 'draconian' clause 88 gives unrestricted powers to the two ministers (Internal Security and Information Ministers) and their regulatory (CCK) appointees. These Powers enable them to declare an emergency and raid media houses. The beef is that these powers are likely to be abused particularly because of the heavy Govt composition of the Regulatory Authorities who would likely serve their appointing authority (Executive) rather than the common good (Public)
Recommendation 1: Delete it or ensure that the Regulatory Authority (CCK) is farily balanced in term of Board representation (i.e Govt, Media, Civil Society, Academia, etc). All proposed Board Members must be vetted by Parliament.
2. that the Content Regulation (Programming Code) aspects is also flawed in that it is ONLY the Information Minister and his appointees who can decide what is prohibited and what is not, what should go on air and at what time.
Recommendation 2: This bit should be taken to the Media Council, whose Act (Media Council Act) should be strengthened to give the Media Council some teeth (enforcement) capabilities.
3. that a Signal Distribution Monopoly would be enforced given that current broadcasters would need to channel their transmission through a licensed signal distributor i.e. dismantle their current distribution infrastructure in the likely event that they are not the designated signal distributor.
Recommendation: ???-Havent picked up this bit of recommendation, someone could fill in?.
Feel free to make belated contributions on the previous themes as well. Tomorrow we enter into the IT section and we shall stick to the same format i.e. dissect the Good, the Bad and (the Ugly?) Recommendations.
walu.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: blongwe@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com
-- Brian Munyao Longwe e-mail: blongwe@gmail.com cell: + 254 722 518 744 blog : http://zinjlog.blogspot.com meta-blog: http://mashilingi.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: dmakali@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/dmakali%40yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: wainaina@madeinkenya.org Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/wainaina%40madeinkenya....
-- Sent from my mobile device --- http://www.bungesms.com TWITTER - http://www.twitter.com/bungesms KABISSA.org - http://www.kabissa.org/about/news/member-spotlight-made-kenya-network KAMPALA Workshop presentation - http://m4d.kcl.co.ug/sites/default/files/presentations/BungeSMS_MadeinKenyaN...
Dadee, Let us be honest. The position is now very easy to comprehend. I will be forceful but not abusive. The Bill matured into an Act and commencement date was 2nd Jan 09. It is now out of PARLIAMENT. As the Deputy Speaker said on Tuesday, you guys (Media) have been snookered by the AG and you swallowed the con....hook, line and sinker. You have lobbied with all your might.. by talking to the restaurant owner (Prezo) whilst abusing the chef (bunge) in the kitchen on his face. The chef will certainly spit or piss in your soup. I mean...I would. Then you threaten to take the Chef to court claiming his recipe (Constitution) is flawed and thus he should change his menu (ICT Act). How will this work?? He runs the show. He is in charge of making laws. [Not that am being gender insensitive, but Parliament belongs to men as their motto proudly proclaims - For the welfare of society and just Government of MEN]. In Italy, I hear, if the Chef moves, the restaurant owner has to close business. Its not any different in this scenario. http://www.bunge.go.ke The media practitioners have also decided to fight the media owners battle making it equally difficult to figure out who/what is being regulated here. The content/communication, practitioner or owner?? Macharia Gaitho in vain tried to explain this scenario at the public forum you dismissed with costs and confirmed the owner/practioner issue is indeed burning but was not fit for the domain and space provided by the Hilton. But at least it should be fit for further discussion in the amendments you now seek. Infact, for practitioners, you should seek this justice religiously. In the spirit of give and take, why don't we see you (media) engage with bunge directly. Mwananchi might want want to see Media Regulated and Parliamentarian paying tax, but I can certainly bet that in that private meeting with Mwenyenchi, you will agree 'Don't regulate me, and I will not write about your tax. This stopped being our war when the Bill was signed!!! [Period]. Who is fooling who? You are equally responsible for the problem and yet you seek to engage on our fine ICT Bill we toiled for 10 years to get signed into law. In other words, the ICT chaps supporting the Act... ARE NOT THE ENEMY. Lay your traps for the enemy elsewhere. In parliament. In fact, if you can tag along with Section 88, the better, since it does not really concern growth of ICT in Kenya. Bill Kagai PS. Actually, when I am signed will I become Act Kagai?? On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:56 PM, David Makali <dmakali@yahoo.com> wrote:
Brian, I thought you are a nice guy, but now I am beginning to think that when you run for president (of malawi? hahaha!) i will not vote for you because i can detect a dictarotial streak in your genes (smile). Now let me turn to your views, which i hold to be fundamentally wrong and misguided. To start with, please stop giving sympathetic interpretations to a bad law. The law is read in the letter (and the spirit left to the courts). May be you have not suffered injustice and that is why you espouse such optimism about Sect 88. If you have read that law, please re-read it to see the venom it has. It can be used arbitrarily and has no respect to private property or the presumption of innocence of the victim of its application.
There are many reasons why i think it is bad law but i will be brief. The law says that the Minister can declare a public emergency (NOTE: it has NOTHING to do with the State of Emergency provided for in the Constitution!).Anything can be a public emergency, including houseflies at city market. And all that is required is for the minister to determine it is, and for the purposes of a law, issue a certificate do declaring, and bar communication between people. What is worse is that if for instance the minister is wrong and he cannot return your equipment (at the end of the so-called emergency), he alone will determine the value to compensate you! Now, is that fair? What happened to the right to be heard? Due process? But that is not grave perhaps. It is your wrong interpretation of that law that prompts me to respond: The law, as i havbe stated above, does not come into force during the period when a State of Emergency has been declared by the President as laid out under the constitution sect 83. NO, that section brings into force provisions of section 57 (preservation of public security act). And what would you say Michuki used when he authorised the attack and seizure of KTN /Standard Group equipment on the pretext that the group had infomration prejudicial to state security (his socks were torn, perhaps)? As you may have noticed, he has never produced the information, returned the seized equipment, or compensated them. And as you well know there was no state of emergency. Good thing is he never cited the law he employed. Up to now. Earlier last year, there was no stat eof emergency declared when the Minister fo Internal security invoked sect 88 to ban live boradcasting. As you well know, the ministry recapitulated and dropped the ban when we took them to court. Why? Because it was illegal! Finally,let me inform you and others that that section, in fact dos not deal with boradcasting stations but those other communication installations and short wave radio (call them "over-over") used by security firms, G4, Cartrack, Taxis and other courier services. Please do not justify what is patently wrong. For us in the media, we don't want such arbitrary actions that threatene our lives and those who invest. So we havbe asked that those provisions apply to you if you want or so love to keep them.
For those who have not read, I am reproducing that offending sect below:
88. On the declaration of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety and tranquility, the Minister for the time being responsible for internal security may, by order in writing, direct any officer duly authorized in their behalf, to take temporary possession of any telecommunication apparatus or any radio communication station or apparatus within Kenya, and –
(d) in the case of radio communication, that any communication or class of communication shall or shall not be emitted from any radio communication taken under this section; or
(e) in the case of telecommunication, that any communication within Kenya from any person or class of persons relating to any particular subject shall be intercepted and disclosed to such person as may be specified in the direction; or
(f) in the case of postal services, that any postal article or class or description of postal article in the course of transmission by post within Kenya shall be intercepted or detained or shall be delivered to any officer mentioned in the order or shall be disposed of in such manner as the Minster may direct.
(2) A certificate signed by the Minster for the time being responsible for internal security shall be conclusive proof of the existence of a public emergency, or that any act done under subsection (1) was done in the public safety or tranquility.
(3) A telecommunication apparatus constructed, maintained or operated by any person within Kenya or any postal article which is sized by any officer duly authorized under subsection (1) (a) shall be returned to the telecommunication operator at the end of the emergency or where such apparatus or article is not returned, full compensation in respect thereof, to be determined by the Minster, shall be paid to the owner.
(4) A person aggrieved by a decision of the Minster under subsection (3) as to the compensation payable in respect of anything seized under this section may appeal to the High Court within fourteen days of such decision.
David
--- On Wed, 1/14/09, Brian Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Brian Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-KCA 2008-Broadcasting-The Recommendations To: dmakali@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2009, 2:22 AM I have some slightly different views regarding section 88
Remembering that fact that this section can only be activated during a state of emergency, let us remind ourselves that since the infancy of this nation there has only been a state of emergency declared twice (in over 50 years).
Why?
This is because there are other laws, including the constitution, that state, when and how a state of emergency ought to be declared. These lay out the specific types of circumstances that MUST prevail before such a state is declared, and also who has the authority and mandate to declare such a state.
Let us remind ourselves that during a state of emergency we have the equivalent of martial law - and the millitary basically have a carte blanche to take whatever measures necesarry to preserve the peace.
The reason I say this is because whether section 88 exists or not, if a state of emergency is declared, broadcasters will be the first to receive urgent attention to ensure controlled dissemination of information.
In fact, if the circumstances that would necessitate a state of emergency took place it is unlikely that any of the journalists or media owners would venture further than their window to peep outside and see if everything is OK.
My point is, let us not get too emotional and overreactionary on this issue - let us keep in sight the greater goals that the KCA Amendments Act intends to achieve and let's get to work.
Regards,
Brian
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:05 AM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanx for the earlier contributions of Faima and Vincent, and more so the recent input from the Hilton Public forum as reported by Barrack. I will now go ahead and post the proposed amendments with regard to the issues/problems raised yesterday.
1. that the retained 'draconian' clause 88 gives unrestricted powers to the two ministers (Internal Security and Information Ministers) and their regulatory (CCK) appointees. These Powers enable them to declare an emergency and raid media houses. The beef is that these powers are likely to be abused particularly because of the heavy Govt composition of the Regulatory Authorities who would likely serve their appointing authority (Executive) rather than the common good (Public)
Recommendation 1: Delete it or ensure that the Regulatory Authority (CCK) is farily balanced in term of Board representation (i.e Govt, Media, Civil Society, Academia, etc). All proposed Board Members must be vetted by Parliament.
2. that the Content Regulation (Programming Code) aspects is also flawed in that it is ONLY the Information Minister and his appointees who can decide what is prohibited and what is not, what should go on air and at what time.
Recommendation 2: This bit should be taken to the Media Council, whose Act (Media Council Act) should be strengthened to give the Media Council some teeth (enforcement) capabilities.
3. that a Signal Distribution Monopoly would be enforced given that current broadcasters would need to channel their transmission through a licensed signal distributor i.e. dismantle their current distribution infrastructure in the likely event that they are not the designated signal distributor.
Recommendation: ???-Havent picked up this bit of recommendation, someone could fill in?.
Feel free to make belated contributions on the previous themes as well. Tomorrow we enter into the IT section and we shall stick to the same format i.e. dissect the Good, the Bad and (the Ugly?) Recommendations.
walu.
Hey Daudi, No reason not to like me just coz I see things a bit differently. But that's cool, as u already know, I have plenty of haters.... Anyway back to the point. I know that you have personally experienced the abuse of power in the hands of the executive and misguided officials. I have huge respect for your unshaking stand in the face of gross cruelty. But please let me clarify myself. I am not for or against Sec 88. I just see it as a piece of a puzzle which is much bigger and which needs to be looked at from many angles by different people. I hope that you will b at the consultations kesho at Regency so that with others we can discuss appropriate interventions. Best regards bro, Mblayo Sent from my iPhone On 14 Jan 2009, at 4:56 PM, David Makali <dmakali@yahoo.com> wrote:
Brian, I thought you are a nice guy, but now I am beginning to think that when you run for president (of malawi? hahaha!) i will not vote for you because i can detect a dictarotial streak in your genes (smile). Now let me turn to your views, which i hold to be fundamentally wrong and misguided. To start with, please stop giving sympathetic interpretations to a bad law. The law is read in the letter (and the spirit left to the courts). May be you have not suffered injustice and that is why you espouse such optimism about Sect 88. If you have read that law, please re-read it to see the venom it has. It can be used arbitrarily and has no respect to private property or the presumption of innocence of the victim of its application.
There are many reasons why i think it is bad law but i will be brief. The law says that the Minister can declare a public emergency (NOTE: it has NOTHING to do with the State of Emergency provided for in the Constitution!).Anything can be a public emergency, including houseflies at city market. And all that is required is for the minister to determine it is, and for the purposes of a law, issue a certificate do declaring, and bar communication between people. What is worse is that if for instance the minister is wrong and he cannot return your equipment (at the end of the so-called emergency), he alone will determine the value to compensate you! Now, is that fair? What happened to the right to be heard? Due process? But that is not grave perhaps. It is your wrong interpretation of that law that prompts me to respond: The law, as i havbe stated above, does not come into force during the period when a State of Emergency has been declared by the President as laid out under the constitution sect 83. NO, that section brings into force provisions of section 57 (preservation of public security act). And what would you say Michuki used when he authorised the attack and seizure of KTN /Standard Group equipment on the pretext that the group had infomration prejudicial to state security (his socks were torn, perhaps)? As you may have noticed, he has never produced the information, returned the seized equipment, or compensated them. And as you well know there was no state of emergency. Good thing is he never cited the law he employed. Up to now. Earlier last year, there was no stat eof emergency declared when the Minister fo Internal security invoked sect 88 to ban live boradcasting. As you well know, the ministry recapitulated and dropped the ban when we took them to court. Why? Because it was illegal! Finally,let me inform you and others that that section, in fact dos not deal with boradcasting stations but those other communication installations and short wave radio (call them "over-over") used by security firms, G4, Cartrack, Taxis and other courier services. Please do not justify what is patently wrong. For us in the media, we don't want such arbitrary actions that threatene our lives and those who invest. So we havbe asked that those provisions apply to you if you want or so love to keep them.
For those who have not read, I am reproducing that offending sect below:
88. On the declaration of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety and tranquility, the Minister for the time being responsible for internal security may, by order in writing, direct any officer duly authorized in their behalf, to take temporary possession of any telecommunication apparatus or any radio communication station or apparatus within Kenya, and –
(d) in the case of radio communication, that any communication or class of communication shall or shall not be emitted from any radio communication taken under this section; or
(e) in the case of telecommunication, that any communication within Kenya from any person or class of persons relating to any particular subject shall be intercepted and disclosed to such person as may be specified in the direction; or
(f) in the case of postal services, that any postal article or class or description of postal article in the course of transmission by post within Kenya shall be intercepted or detained or shall be delivered to any officer mentioned in the order or shall be disposed of in such manner as the Minster may direct.
(2) A certificate signed by the Minster for the time being responsible for internal security shall be conclusive proof of the existence of a public emergency, or that any act done under subsection (1) was done in the public safety or tranquility.
(3) A telecommunication apparatus constructed, maintained or operated by any person within Kenya or any postal article which is sized by any officer duly authorized under subsection (1) (a) shall be returned to the telecommunication operator at the end of the emergency or where such apparatus or article is not returned, full compensation in respect thereof, to be determined by the Minster, shall be paid to the owner.
(4) A person aggrieved by a decision of the Minster under subsection (3) as to the compensation payable in respect of anything seized under this section may appeal to the High Court within fourteen days of such decision.
David
--- On Wed, 1/14/09, Brian Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Brian Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-KCA 2008-Broadcasting-The Recommendations To: dmakali@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2009, 2:22 AM I have some slightly different views regarding section 88
Remembering that fact that this section can only be activated during a state of emergency, let us remind ourselves that since the infancy of this nation there has only been a state of emergency declared twice (in over 50 years).
Why?
This is because there are other laws, including the constitution, that state, when and how a state of emergency ought to be declared. These lay out the specific types of circumstances that MUST prevail before such a state is declared, and also who has the authority and mandate to declare such a state.
Let us remind ourselves that during a state of emergency we have the equivalent of martial law - and the millitary basically have a carte blanche to take whatever measures necesarry to preserve the peace.
The reason I say this is because whether section 88 exists or not, if a state of emergency is declared, broadcasters will be the first to receive urgent attention to ensure controlled dissemination of information.
In fact, if the circumstances that would necessitate a state of emergency took place it is unlikely that any of the journalists or media owners would venture further than their window to peep outside and see if everything is OK.
My point is, let us not get too emotional and overreactionary on this issue - let us keep in sight the greater goals that the KCA Amendments Act intends to achieve and let's get to work.
Regards,
Brian
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:05 AM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanx for the earlier contributions of Faima and Vincent, and more so the recent input from the Hilton Public forum as reported by Barrack. I will now go ahead and post the proposed amendments with regard to the issues/problems raised yesterday.
1. that the retained 'draconian' clause 88 gives unrestricted powers to the two ministers (Internal Security and Information Ministers) and their regulatory (CCK) appointees. These Powers enable them to declare an emergency and raid media houses. The beef is that these powers are likely to be abused particularly because of the heavy Govt composition of the Regulatory Authorities who would likely serve their appointing authority (Executive) rather than the common good (Public)
Recommendation 1: Delete it or ensure that the Regulatory Authority (CCK) is farily balanced in term of Board representation (i.e Govt, Media, Civil Society, Academia, etc). All proposed Board Members must be vetted by Parliament.
2. that the Content Regulation (Programming Code) aspects is also flawed in that it is ONLY the Information Minister and his appointees who can decide what is prohibited and what is not, what should go on air and at what time.
Recommendation 2: This bit should be taken to the Media Council, whose Act (Media Council Act) should be strengthened to give the Media Council some teeth (enforcement) capabilities.
3. that a Signal Distribution Monopoly would be enforced given that current broadcasters would need to channel their transmission through a licensed signal distributor i.e. dismantle their current distribution infrastructure in the likely event that they are not the designated signal distributor.
Recommendation: ???-Havent picked up this bit of recommendation, someone could fill in?.
Feel free to make belated contributions on the previous themes as well. Tomorrow we enter into the IT section and we shall stick to the same format i.e. dissect the Good, the Bad and (the Ugly?) Recommendations.
walu.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: blongwe@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com
-- Brian Munyao Longwe e-mail: blongwe@gmail.com cell: + 254 722 518 744 blog : http://zinjlog.blogspot.com meta-blog: http://mashilingi.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: dmakali@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/dmakali%40yahoo.com
Everybody knows very well that when the rating of some specific media house goes down, they chokosa government so that people can be sympatetic. End of Decenber they tried to use my Maasai brother to do the same but this time round the government was smarter. I wish people like Makali can do some research instead of making arguments like an unschooled person. In Australia the arguments of Broadcast are presented in a civilized manner. Please read the attached: Victor Maloi
Maloy: 1. I am unschooled. 2. I don't live in Australia. Your generalised "they" statements don't amount to much or even deserve a reasoned response. I dont know which schooling you have but i cant see it in your contribution. David _______________ "If my doctor told me I had only six minutes to live, I wouldn't brood. I'd type a little faster." — Isaac Asimo, Columbian Author and Scientist _______________ PO Box 3234 00200 Nairobi, Kenya cell: +254 722 517 540 --- On Wed, 1/14/09, Victor Maloi <victormaloi3@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Victor Maloi <victormaloi3@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Makali's response to brian longwe: KCA 2008-Broadcasting-The Recommendations To: dmakali@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2009, 12:03 PM Everybody knows very well that when the rating of some specific media house goes down, they chokosa government so that people can be sympatetic. End of Decenber they tried to use my Maasai brother to do the same but this time round the government was smarter.
I wish people like Makali can do some research instead of making arguments like an unschooled person.
In Australia the arguments of Broadcast are presented in a civilized manner. Please read the attached:
Victor Maloi
Makali, Why are you refusing to pick the fight with the right people in Parliament?? Why are you refusing to engage without the negativity?? I hope you are given an opportunity kesho at Laico to speak, so that we can engage mutually. I hope you will agree to attend.... Act Kagai On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:12 PM, David Makali <dmakali@yahoo.com> wrote:
Maloy: 1. I am unschooled. 2. I don't live in Australia.
Your generalised "they" statements don't amount to much or even deserve a reasoned response. I dont know which schooling you have but i cant see it in your contribution. David
_______________
"If my doctor told me I had only six minutes to live, I wouldn't brood. I'd type a little faster." — Isaac Asimo, Columbian Author and Scientist _______________
PO Box 3234 00200 Nairobi, Kenya cell: +254 722 517 540
--- On Wed, 1/14/09, Victor Maloi <victormaloi3@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Victor Maloi <victormaloi3@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Makali's response to brian longwe: KCA 2008-Broadcasting-The Recommendations To: dmakali@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2009, 12:03 PM Everybody knows very well that when the rating of some specific media house goes down, they chokosa government so that people can be sympatetic. End of Decenber they tried to use my Maasai brother to do the same but this time round the government was smarter.
I wish people like Makali can do some research instead of making arguments like an unschooled person.
In Australia the arguments of Broadcast are presented in a civilized manner. Please read the attached:
Victor Maloi
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: billkagai@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/billkagai%40gmail.com
Why is it me? That msg frm maloy makes sense to you? Why don't you see anything wrong with that msg. Get real, Bill. Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -----Original Message----- From: Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:45:28 To: <dmakali@yahoo.com> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions<kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Makali's response to brian longwe: KCA 2008-Broadcasting-The Recommendations _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: dmakali@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/dmakali%40yahoo.com
Makali, I have been involved in the policy making process in the ICT sector both locally and within the WSIS process. So, allow me to make some observations. I was at the forum on Tuesday and agreed with the deputy speaker that the media is bullying Parliamentarians and expecting Parliament to pass the law in their favour.....Bill put it better than I can. You can read my opinion http://beckyit.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-it-s-hard-to-sympathize-with-media.h... During the meeting, it became clear the media did not perhaps do what other sectors did in terms of lobbying in the process. Section 88 has been there since 1998, is this the time the media has just realized that? During the drafting process, various sectors are asked to amend or draft clauses that do not suit them and present what they would want the clauses to read. Was the media involved in the drafting process? I think it is wrong for the media to assume that the government or the other sectors should have understood the issues or implications while they were not there. I was shocked when Macharia Gaitho said on Tuesday that when they were in Mombasa discussion the FOI the ministry said that that is all there is regarding media, that there was no other act concerning the media. I wondered, did the media stakeholders expect the government to look out for them? The bone of contention is the power given to the media council and the financing, parties should come together and say how they plan to finance it and give it teeth. This way, all the concerns will be addressed squarely. If our (media) concerns is the libel and the flimsy grounds that people institute cases and win awards, I think the next stage is for the media to lobby for the amendment of the judicature act chapter 35 (am not sure) which deals with defamation and shift the burden of proof to the complainant, more like the amendments to the UK laws, which we inherited and have never amended. This way, the laws will be harmonized to take care of all concerns and interests. Gaitho put it very clearly that the media is not aganist regulation but control. This is the time to pursue regulation mechanisms and put them in place. regards Tel. 254 720 318 925 blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/ ________________________________ From: "dmakali@yahoo.com" <dmakali@yahoo.com> To: rebeccawanjiku@yahoo.com Cc: kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 9:28:14 PM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Makali's response to brian longwe: KCA2008-Broadcasting-The Recommendations Why is it me? That msg frm maloy makes sense to you? Why don't you see anything wrong with that msg. Get real, Bill. Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -----Original Message----- From: Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:45:28 To: <dmakali@yahoo.com> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions<kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Makali's response to brian longwe: KCA 2008-Broadcasting-The Recommendations _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: dmakali@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/dmakali%40yahoo.com _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: rebeccawanjiku@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/rebeccawanjiku%40yahoo....
Rebecca, I don't think you people are willing to listen to what the media is saying. And as long as you proceed with that bias, there is unlikely to be any constructive dialogue or debate about the actual issues - whcih i urge you to focus on. Blaming the media for not having acted properly (and am not defending it here) is not going to wash. First because you need to understand why the media resorted to certain actions, and secondly because you are conferring too much credit on the govt/ministry for what has happened or not happened. The fight, to use Bill Kaigai's words, is not even one between you (ICT people) who have jumped in between and the media, but between the media and the govt/parliament, particularly the ministry which is desperately trying to rope in everybody to its side in an unnecessary war against the media. Who is bullying who? The media or the ministry which wants to legislate wapende wasipende, laws which we genuinely feel can be better? First, the deputy speaker can not even justify that legislation. As it has emerged, most of those MPs had not read or were not awake to the implications of the bill that a few passed. And so we should sit back and fold our legs and say we can do nothing about it? That is relapsing to tyranny (Frankly, if you as me, parliament has effectively replaced the executive as the seat of dictatorship in our country. I am willing to defend that position anywhere.) If inded you followed the legislative process, you would have noticed by now that not a single amendment was taken by the MPs when the Bill went through the readings. Why? How democratic is that for Parliament. MPs should not lord it over everybody, and be haughty about their legslative power, when most of them know zilch about the legislation they pass. So, should the media be blamed for not trying when it raised its voice and made all manner of presentations to the VP, PM, Minsters, Parliamentary Committee? Are you aware that before the law was passed, the media had interceded with Kalonzo, Raila, Karua, Rege's Committee, and the Ministry of Information? So, it is not for want of trying that the media found itself in this situation. I am surprised at your claim that we should have gone out to look for govermnent to ask if there was any legisation . Surely, are you serious? Is it the business of the media, or anyone else for that mater to go inquiring if the govt does not disclose if it has legislation coming on a particular sector? How come you want to excuse the ministry for that mischief, and blame Macharia instead for the offence of the ministry? I dont get it. I must point out that since the beginning of the year, the ministry has been hellbent on controlling the media. It tried to usurp the role of the media council (i will come to that shortly) early last year but was repulsed. Eventually a task force to look at how to improve the media act to address its weaknesses was constituted, with a rep from the ministry. It had a short, one month period to discuss and produce recommendations for amendments. That was five months ago. Up to now, it has met only once, the deadline has been extended indefinitely. In the meantime, the ministry has succeeded in shoving through the Communications Act. Start by asking the ministry what is happening to the task force headed by Priscilla Nyokabi of ICJ, then may be you will begin to comprehend the media's beef with the ministry. The point has been made that the media council has not been effective. That is again another lie. What is not being stated in all this hulla balloo of condemnation is that the media act was only passed in september 2007, and came into force in october, when elections were due in december. By then, the institution of the council charged with aribtrating complaints - the complaints commission - had not been formed! Nor the finances provided. Even so, what exactly does the act say? If does not give the council power to attack or interfere with media houses. It provides a mechanism for the public to respond to media content. It is not the Council to go after r police the media but the public to compain about what it is unhappy with or contrary to the code of ethics of journalism as provided in that media act. so to blame the media council for not acting is clearly wrong (even with the reasons given above). How many people actually know that the council is supposed to do? How many compaints has the council "received" apart from people whining in public. The procedures are all there - you write to the council to compain about a particular station or newspaper; the council summons the media house and gives it 14 days within which to repsond, then the matter goes before the complaints commission to arbitrate and make a finding and issue orders to be obeyed by the media house. That is as it should be. All parties are heard. For your information, the complaints comission was formed three months ago and is now functional. It has received compalints, including from the govt, about some stations. It is not correct ot say that the media are self-regulating or they have failed because that media council is a statory (read govt) body with media, govt and non media representation. The complaints commission is also a non-media body (the chair is a lawyer with qualifications required of a high court judge!) Please note - the era of self-regulation ended with the passage of the media act, 2007! swhich is why the media has argued that the controls under the new comm act are parallel to what already exists, and all content issues should be moved under one statute. For the purposes of moving forward, the media fraternity (MOA, editors guid) have made very specific proposals for amending the Act, among them the following: 1. to move the whole broadcasting section hived off and moved to the media act, and should that not be possible or even after so doing; 2. restrict the coding envisaged in sect 46 to entertainment programs (so as to preserve the editorial independence of the media) and scope to be restricted to adult content, religious programs, decency etc and such code to be dranw up in consultation with the media council. 3. improve on the compsosition of the comm commission by requiring the minister to appoint to the commission people nominated by sectors of stakeholders, including the chair of the media council 4. disengage the minister form issuing directives to the commission 5. reduce the heavy fines provided for offences under the act 6. move all the complaints related to content from the act to the media act, and keep those related to violations of infrastructure nd licencing issues to the comm commission, which should be left with the management of frequencies and infrastructure. 7 amend the media act appropriately to acccommodate the above changes, and additional responsibilities, and provide for funding. Surely, these proposals are not designed to protect the media or shield it from any criticism, but make it accountable but still independent, not a lapdog of the govt. I hope this is not outrageous or offending to the ICT fraternity. ~David --- On Thu, 1/15/09, Rebecca Wanjiku <rebeccawanjiku@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Rebecca Wanjiku <rebeccawanjiku@yahoo.com> Subject: why bullying won't help To: dmakali@yahoo.com Cc: "kictanet" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Thursday, January 15, 2009, 12:27 AM Makali,
I have been involved in the policy making process in the ICT sector both locally and within the WSIS process. So, allow me to make some observations.
I was at the forum on Tuesday and agreed with the deputy speaker that the media is bullying Parliamentarians and expecting Parliament to pass the law in their favour.....Bill put it better than I can. You can read my opinion http://beckyit.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-it-s-hard-to-sympathize-with-media.h...
During the meeting, it became clear the media did not perhaps do what other sectors did in terms of lobbying in the process. Section 88 has been there since 1998, is this the time the media has just realized that?
During the drafting process, various sectors are asked to amend or draft clauses that do not suit them and present what they would want the clauses to read. Was the media involved in the drafting process? I think it is wrong for the media to assume that the government or the other sectors should have understood the issues or implications while they were not there. I was shocked when Macharia Gaitho said on Tuesday that when they were in Mombasa discussion the FOI the ministry said that that is all there is regarding media, that there was no other act concerning the media. I wondered, did the media stakeholders expect the government to look out for them?
The bone of contention is the power given to the media council and the financing, parties should come together and say how they plan to finance it and give it teeth. This way, all the concerns will be addressed squarely.
If our (media) concerns is the libel and the flimsy grounds that people institute cases and win awards, I think the next stage is for the media to lobby for the amendment of the judicature act chapter 35 (am not sure) which deals with defamation and shift the burden of proof to the complainant, more like the amendments to the UK laws, which we inherited and have never amended.
This way, the laws will be harmonized to take care of all concerns and interests. Gaitho put it very clearly that the media is not aganist regulation but control. This is the time to pursue regulation mechanisms and put them in place.
regards
Tel. 254 720 318 925
blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/
________________________________ From: "dmakali@yahoo.com" <dmakali@yahoo.com> To: rebeccawanjiku@yahoo.com Cc: kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 9:28:14 PM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Makali's response to brian longwe: KCA2008-Broadcasting-The Recommendations
Why is it me? That msg frm maloy makes sense to you? Why don't you see anything wrong with that msg. Get real, Bill.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
-----Original Message----- From: Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:45:28 To: <dmakali@yahoo.com> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions<kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Makali's response to brian longwe: KCA 2008-Broadcasting-The Recommendations
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: dmakali@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/dmakali%40yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: rebeccawanjiku@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/rebeccawanjiku%40yahoo....
Thanx David, I have noted your specific proposals...lets turn our attention to the bad things about the IT Section... We need to review some of the concerns raised by the IT fraternity. Michuki raised one concerning the management of the internet domain names. Apparently all domain managers/registras must be licensed by CCK (Regulator) rather than KENIC (the current) managers for the .KE space. Two issues arise here (a) CCK Board is largely government selected and driven, whereas KENIC board is multi-stakeholder selected and driven. Do we therefore want only Govt to oversee the .KE space? What model should we have instead? Another thing noted is the fact that some domain management issue DO NOT NEED a license but clause 83D seems restraining in that all actions on a .KE and its subdomain would require a license. Quite difficult to enforce if you asked me... The other issue I picked regards the liabilities of ISPs/ASPs or Infrastructure managers with regard to pornographic content. If you are an ISP and your customers downstream are spewing digital porn - you are as guilty as they are and good for the courts/jail (Clause 84D). The only comfort here is that this is a global and not a locally engineered challenge (remember internet governance issues?). So how do correctly apportion blame between content creators and content transmitters(pipes) as it were? Finally, some of the e-Crimes cited have been found to be too restrictive, like 'hacking' with respect to software (84C) or mobile devices. Many techies will tell you that they need to hack in order to learn/innovate. The same way our Jua-kali mechanics learn how the car-engine works by breaking it apart. Unfortunately I have no immediate Recommendations to smoothen these issues but the floor is open for clarifications/recommendations. We have today and the weekend for this theme and on Monday we have a look at the Telecommunication aspects. walu. --- On Thu, 1/15/09, David Makali <dmakali@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: David Makali <dmakali@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] why bullying won't help To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: "kictanet" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Thursday, January 15, 2009, 5:33 PM Rebecca, I don't think you people are willing to listen to what the media is saying. And as long as you proceed with that bias, there is unlikely to be any constructive dialogue or debate about the actual issues - whcih i urge you to focus on. Blaming the media for not having acted properly (and am not defending it here) is not going to wash. First because you need to understand why the media resorted to certain actions, and secondly because you are conferring too much credit on the govt/ministry for what has happened or not happened. The fight, to use Bill Kaigai's words, is not even one between you (ICT people) who have jumped in between and the media, but between the media and the govt/parliament, particularly the ministry which is desperately trying to rope in everybody to its side in an unnecessary war against the media.
Who is bullying who? The media or the ministry which wants to legislate wapende wasipende, laws which we genuinely feel can be better?
First, the deputy speaker can not even justify that legislation. As it has emerged, most of those MPs had not read or were not awake to the implications of the bill that a few passed. And so we should sit back and fold our legs and say we can do nothing about it? That is relapsing to tyranny (Frankly, if you as me, parliament has effectively replaced the executive as the seat of dictatorship in our country. I am willing to defend that position anywhere.) If inded you followed the legislative process, you would have noticed by now that not a single amendment was taken by the MPs when the Bill went through the readings. Why? How democratic is that for Parliament. MPs should not lord it over everybody, and be haughty about their legslative power, when most of them know zilch about the legislation they pass. So, should the media be blamed for not trying when it raised its voice and made all manner of presentations to the VP, PM, Minsters, Parliamentary Committee? Are you aware that before the law was passed, the media had interceded with Kalonzo, Raila, Karua, Rege's Committee, and the Ministry of Information? So, it is not for want of trying that the media found itself in this situation.
I am surprised at your claim that we should have gone out to look for govermnent to ask if there was any legisation . Surely, are you serious? Is it the business of the media, or anyone else for that mater to go inquiring if the govt does not disclose if it has legislation coming on a particular sector? How come you want to excuse the ministry for that mischief, and blame Macharia instead for the offence of the ministry? I dont get it.
I must point out that since the beginning of the year, the ministry has been hellbent on controlling the media. It tried to usurp the role of the media council (i will come to that shortly) early last year but was repulsed. Eventually a task force to look at how to improve the media act to address its weaknesses was constituted, with a rep from the ministry. It had a short, one month period to discuss and produce recommendations for amendments. That was five months ago. Up to now, it has met only once, the deadline has been extended indefinitely. In the meantime, the ministry has succeeded in shoving through the Communications Act. Start by asking the ministry what is happening to the task force headed by Priscilla Nyokabi of ICJ, then may be you will begin to comprehend the media's beef with the ministry.
The point has been made that the media council has not been effective. That is again another lie. What is not being stated in all this hulla balloo of condemnation is that the media act was only passed in september 2007, and came into force in october, when elections were due in december. By then, the institution of the council charged with aribtrating complaints - the complaints commission - had not been formed! Nor the finances provided. Even so, what exactly does the act say? If does not give the council power to attack or interfere with media houses. It provides a mechanism for the public to respond to media content. It is not the Council to go after r police the media but the public to compain about what it is unhappy with or contrary to the code of ethics of journalism as provided in that media act. so to blame the media council for not acting is clearly wrong (even with the reasons given above). How many people actually know that the council is supposed to do? How many compaints has the council "received" apart from people whining in public. The procedures are all there - you write to the council to compain about a particular station or newspaper; the council summons the media house and gives it 14 days within which to repsond, then the matter goes before the complaints commission to arbitrate and make a finding and issue orders to be obeyed by the media house. That is as it should be. All parties are heard.
For your information, the complaints comission was formed three months ago and is now functional. It has received compalints, including from the govt, about some stations.
It is not correct ot say that the media are self-regulating or they have failed because that media council is a statory (read govt) body with media, govt and non media representation. The complaints commission is also a non-media body (the chair is a lawyer with qualifications required of a high court judge!) Please note - the era of self-regulation ended with the passage of the media act, 2007!
swhich is why the media has argued that the controls under the new comm act are parallel to what already exists, and all content issues should be moved under one statute.
For the purposes of moving forward, the media fraternity (MOA, editors guid) have made very specific proposals for amending the Act, among them the following: 1. to move the whole broadcasting section hived off and moved to the media act, and should that not be possible or even after so doing; 2. restrict the coding envisaged in sect 46 to entertainment programs (so as to preserve the editorial independence of the media) and scope to be restricted to adult content, religious programs, decency etc and such code to be dranw up in consultation with the media council. 3. improve on the compsosition of the comm commission by requiring the minister to appoint to the commission people nominated by sectors of stakeholders, including the chair of the media council 4. disengage the minister form issuing directives to the commission 5. reduce the heavy fines provided for offences under the act 6. move all the complaints related to content from the act to the media act, and keep those related to violations of infrastructure nd licencing issues to the comm commission, which should be left with the management of frequencies and infrastructure. 7 amend the media act appropriately to acccommodate the above changes, and additional responsibilities, and provide for funding.
Surely, these proposals are not designed to protect the media or shield it from any criticism, but make it accountable but still independent, not a lapdog of the govt.
I hope this is not outrageous or offending to the ICT fraternity. ~David
--- On Thu, 1/15/09, Rebecca Wanjiku <rebeccawanjiku@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Rebecca Wanjiku <rebeccawanjiku@yahoo.com> Subject: why bullying won't help To: dmakali@yahoo.com Cc: "kictanet" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Thursday, January 15, 2009, 12:27 AM Makali,
I have been involved in the policy making process in the ICT sector both locally and within the WSIS process. So, allow me to make some observations.
I was at the forum on Tuesday and agreed with the deputy speaker that the media is bullying Parliamentarians and expecting Parliament to pass the law in their favour.....Bill put it better than I can. You can read my opinion
http://beckyit.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-it-s-hard-to-sympathize-with-media.h...
During the meeting, it became clear the media did not perhaps do what other sectors did in terms of lobbying
the process. Section 88 has been there since 1998, is
the time the media has just realized that?
During the drafting process, various sectors are asked to amend or draft clauses that do not suit them and
what they would want the clauses to read. Was the media involved in the drafting process? I think it is wrong for the media to assume that the government or the other sectors should have understood the issues or implications while they were not there. I was shocked when Macharia Gaitho said on Tuesday
when they were in Mombasa discussion the FOI the ministry said that that is all there is regarding media, that
was no other act concerning the media. I wondered, did
media stakeholders expect the government to look out for them?
The bone of contention is the power given to the media council and the financing, parties should come together and say how they plan to finance it and give it teeth. This way, all the concerns will be addressed squarely.
If our (media) concerns is the libel and the flimsy grounds that people institute cases and win awards, I think
stage is for the media to lobby for the amendment of
judicature act chapter 35 (am not sure) which deals with defamation and shift the burden of proof to the complainant, more like the amendments to the UK laws, which we inherited and have never amended.
This way, the laws will be harmonized to take care of all concerns and interests. Gaitho put it very clearly
media is not aganist regulation but control. This is
time to pursue regulation mechanisms and put them in
in this present that there the the next the that the the place.
regards
Tel. 254 720 318 925
blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/
________________________________ From: "dmakali@yahoo.com" <dmakali@yahoo.com> To: rebeccawanjiku@yahoo.com Cc: kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 9:28:14 PM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Makali's response to brian longwe: KCA2008-Broadcasting-The Recommendations
Why is it me? That msg frm maloy makes sense to you?
Why
don't you see anything wrong with that msg. Get real, Bill.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
-----Original Message----- From: Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:45:28 To: <dmakali@yahoo.com> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions<kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Makali's response to brian longwe: KCA 2008-Broadcasting-The Recommendations
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: dmakali@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/dmakali%40yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: rebeccawanjiku@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/rebeccawanjiku%40yahoo....
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
Walu, This is getting a bit confusing for me. Besides changing 'subject lines', you are forcing a debate that is clearly non-existent. I am concerned about your game plan here. As you continue collecting opinion over the next one week and then draft a report over the other two weeks, will it not be too late to submit a petition?? Yesterday, the Computer Society of Kenya, Kenya ICT Federation, PRSK, ICT Consumer Association and a horde of other stakeholders submitted petitions to the Ministry at Laico Regency. I feel this activity is not only slow and time barred, but it will bring a lot of confusion later if not drag us back to where we have just managed to come from. Has Kictanet sanctioned that what you gather here will be our official petition on the ICT Act?? Aren't we past that now?? -Kindly clarify Kictanet intentions with this Day X of Y debate you have triggered. -Has the Ministry asked for comments on the new ICT Law. To the contrary, I think they are implementing the new law. Maybe your debate should be on action rather than commenting on a law process that has come to pass. Maybe commentary on how the new law will be put into practice. I am just confused....I could be wrong about your/kictanet intentions here..... Thx, Bill On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 2:24 PM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanx David, I have noted your specific proposals...lets turn our attention to the bad things about the IT Section...
We need to review some of the concerns raised by the IT fraternity. Michuki raised one concerning the management of the internet domain names. Apparently all domain managers/registras must be licensed by CCK (Regulator) rather than KENIC (the current) managers for the .KE space. Two issues arise here (a) CCK Board is largely government selected and driven, whereas KENIC board is multi-stakeholder selected and driven. Do we therefore want only Govt to oversee the .KE space? What model should we have instead? Another thing noted is the fact that some domain management issue DO NOT NEED a license but clause 83D seems restraining in that all actions on a .KE and its subdomain would require a license. Quite difficult to enforce if you asked me...
The other issue I picked regards the liabilities of ISPs/ASPs or Infrastructure managers with regard to pornographic content. If you are an ISP and your customers downstream are spewing digital porn - you are as guilty as they are and good for the courts/jail (Clause 84D). The only comfort here is that this is a global and not a locally engineered challenge (remember internet governance issues?). So how do correctly apportion blame between content creators and content transmitters(pipes) as it were?
Finally, some of the e-Crimes cited have been found to be too restrictive, like 'hacking' with respect to software (84C) or mobile devices. Many techies will tell you that they need to hack in order to learn/innovate. The same way our Jua-kali mechanics learn how the car-engine works by breaking it apart. Unfortunately I have no immediate Recommendations to smoothen these issues but the floor is open for clarifications/recommendations. We have today and the weekend for this theme and on Monday we have a look at the Telecommunication aspects.
walu.
--- On Thu, 1/15/09, David Makali <dmakali@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: David Makali <dmakali@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] why bullying won't help To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: "kictanet" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Thursday, January 15, 2009, 5:33 PM Rebecca, I don't think you people are willing to listen to what the media is saying. And as long as you proceed with that bias, there is unlikely to be any constructive dialogue or debate about the actual issues - whcih i urge you to focus on. Blaming the media for not having acted properly (and am not defending it here) is not going to wash. First because you need to understand why the media resorted to certain actions, and secondly because you are conferring too much credit on the govt/ministry for what has happened or not happened. The fight, to use Bill Kaigai's words, is not even one between you (ICT people) who have jumped in between and the media, but between the media and the govt/parliament, particularly the ministry which is desperately trying to rope in everybody to its side in an unnecessary war against the media.
Who is bullying who? The media or the ministry which wants to legislate wapende wasipende, laws which we genuinely feel can be better?
First, the deputy speaker can not even justify that legislation. As it has emerged, most of those MPs had not read or were not awake to the implications of the bill that a few passed. And so we should sit back and fold our legs and say we can do nothing about it? That is relapsing to tyranny (Frankly, if you as me, parliament has effectively replaced the executive as the seat of dictatorship in our country. I am willing to defend that position anywhere.) If inded you followed the legislative process, you would have noticed by now that not a single amendment was taken by the MPs when the Bill went through the readings. Why? How democratic is that for Parliament. MPs should not lord it over everybody, and be haughty about their legslative power, when most of them know zilch about the legislation they pass. So, should the media be blamed for not trying when it raised its voice and made all manner of presentations to the VP, PM, Minsters, Parliamentary Committee? Are you aware that before the law was passed, the media had interceded with Kalonzo, Raila, Karua, Rege's Committee, and the Ministry of Information? So, it is not for want of trying that the media found itself in this situation.
I am surprised at your claim that we should have gone out to look for govermnent to ask if there was any legisation . Surely, are you serious? Is it the business of the media, or anyone else for that mater to go inquiring if the govt does not disclose if it has legislation coming on a particular sector? How come you want to excuse the ministry for that mischief, and blame Macharia instead for the offence of the ministry? I dont get it.
I must point out that since the beginning of the year, the ministry has been hellbent on controlling the media. It tried to usurp the role of the media council (i will come to that shortly) early last year but was repulsed. Eventually a task force to look at how to improve the media act to address its weaknesses was constituted, with a rep from the ministry. It had a short, one month period to discuss and produce recommendations for amendments. That was five months ago. Up to now, it has met only once, the deadline has been extended indefinitely. In the meantime, the ministry has succeeded in shoving through the Communications Act. Start by asking the ministry what is happening to the task force headed by Priscilla Nyokabi of ICJ, then may be you will begin to comprehend the media's beef with the ministry.
The point has been made that the media council has not been effective. That is again another lie. What is not being stated in all this hulla balloo of condemnation is that the media act was only passed in september 2007, and came into force in october, when elections were due in december. By then, the institution of the council charged with aribtrating complaints - the complaints commission - had not been formed! Nor the finances provided. Even so, what exactly does the act say? If does not give the council power to attack or interfere with media houses. It provides a mechanism for the public to respond to media content. It is not the Council to go after r police the media but the public to compain about what it is unhappy with or contrary to the code of ethics of journalism as provided in that media act. so to blame the media council for not acting is clearly wrong (even with the reasons given above). How many people actually know that the council is supposed to do? How many compaints has the council "received" apart from people whining in public. The procedures are all there - you write to the council to compain about a particular station or newspaper; the council summons the media house and gives it 14 days within which to repsond, then the matter goes before the complaints commission to arbitrate and make a finding and issue orders to be obeyed by the media house. That is as it should be. All parties are heard.
For your information, the complaints comission was formed three months ago and is now functional. It has received compalints, including from the govt, about some stations.
It is not correct ot say that the media are self-regulating or they have failed because that media council is a statory (read govt) body with media, govt and non media representation. The complaints commission is also a non-media body (the chair is a lawyer with qualifications required of a high court judge!) Please note - the era of self-regulation ended with the passage of the media act, 2007!
swhich is why the media has argued that the controls under the new comm act are parallel to what already exists, and all content issues should be moved under one statute.
For the purposes of moving forward, the media fraternity (MOA, editors guid) have made very specific proposals for amending the Act, among them the following: 1. to move the whole broadcasting section hived off and moved to the media act, and should that not be possible or even after so doing; 2. restrict the coding envisaged in sect 46 to entertainment programs (so as to preserve the editorial independence of the media) and scope to be restricted to adult content, religious programs, decency etc and such code to be dranw up in consultation with the media council. 3. improve on the compsosition of the comm commission by requiring the minister to appoint to the commission people nominated by sectors of stakeholders, including the chair of the media council 4. disengage the minister form issuing directives to the commission 5. reduce the heavy fines provided for offences under the act 6. move all the complaints related to content from the act to the media act, and keep those related to violations of infrastructure nd licencing issues to the comm commission, which should be left with the management of frequencies and infrastructure. 7 amend the media act appropriately to acccommodate the above changes, and additional responsibilities, and provide for funding.
Surely, these proposals are not designed to protect the media or shield it from any criticism, but make it accountable but still independent, not a lapdog of the govt.
I hope this is not outrageous or offending to the ICT fraternity. ~David
--- On Thu, 1/15/09, Rebecca Wanjiku <rebeccawanjiku@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Rebecca Wanjiku <rebeccawanjiku@yahoo.com> Subject: why bullying won't help To: dmakali@yahoo.com Cc: "kictanet" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Thursday, January 15, 2009, 12:27 AM Makali,
I have been involved in the policy making process in the ICT sector both locally and within the WSIS process. So, allow me to make some observations.
I was at the forum on Tuesday and agreed with the deputy speaker that the media is bullying Parliamentarians and expecting Parliament to pass the law in their favour.....Bill put it better than I can. You can read my opinion
http://beckyit.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-it-s-hard-to-sympathize-with-media.h...
During the meeting, it became clear the media did not perhaps do what other sectors did in terms of lobbying
the process. Section 88 has been there since 1998, is
the time the media has just realized that?
During the drafting process, various sectors are asked to amend or draft clauses that do not suit them and
what they would want the clauses to read. Was the media involved in the drafting process? I think it is wrong for the media to assume that the government or the other sectors should have understood the issues or implications while they were not there. I was shocked when Macharia Gaitho said on Tuesday
when they were in Mombasa discussion the FOI the ministry said that that is all there is regarding media, that
was no other act concerning the media. I wondered, did
media stakeholders expect the government to look out for them?
The bone of contention is the power given to the media council and the financing, parties should come together and say how they plan to finance it and give it teeth. This way, all the concerns will be addressed squarely.
If our (media) concerns is the libel and the flimsy grounds that people institute cases and win awards, I think
stage is for the media to lobby for the amendment of
judicature act chapter 35 (am not sure) which deals with defamation and shift the burden of proof to the complainant, more like the amendments to the UK laws, which we inherited and have never amended.
This way, the laws will be harmonized to take care of all concerns and interests. Gaitho put it very clearly
media is not aganist regulation but control. This is
time to pursue regulation mechanisms and put them in
in this present that there the the next the that the the place.
regards
Tel. 254 720 318 925
blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/
________________________________ From: "dmakali@yahoo.com" <dmakali@yahoo.com> To: rebeccawanjiku@yahoo.com Cc: kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 9:28:14 PM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Makali's response to brian longwe: KCA2008-Broadcasting-The Recommendations
Why is it me? That msg frm maloy makes sense to you?
Why
don't you see anything wrong with that msg. Get real, Bill.
Sent from my BlackBerry(R) wireless device
-----Original Message----- From: Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:45:28 To: <dmakali@yahoo.com> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions<kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Makali's response to brian longwe: KCA 2008-Broadcasting-The Recommendations
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: dmakali@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/dmakali%40yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: rebeccawanjiku@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/rebeccawanjiku%40yahoo....
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: billkagai@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/billkagai%40gmail.com
There is unlikely to be anything going forth, re amendments to the act, until after aug 2009! Parl returns tue to deal with the eck, waki tribunal ane other const issues, then it will be prorogued to resume before june for budget whose debate which will take 7weeks. David Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -----Original Message----- From: Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:57:57 To: <dmakali@yahoo.com> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions<kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10-KCA 2008, IT Section - the Bad + Recommendations _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: dmakali@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/dmakali%40yahoo.com
Bill, I have no game plan, I am an Academician and so find that I am able to look at this issues from each stakeholders perspective relatively objectively - and yes my effort was 'duly' commissioned by the KICTANet National Cordinator - though not digitally signed :-(. This 10day exercise is not intended in anywway to undermine any other 'fact-finding' exercise and I believe the Ministry (of Info) does have the resources to multi-task and receive ideas from face-2-face workshops, online workshops, et al. With regard to timeliness - last I heard was that Wako (AG) and/or Parliament can only begin to debate the suggested recommendations/proposals in April 2009 under a new Bill. So my take is that we have enough time for KICTAnet, ISACA and/or any other Stakeholder to submit their ideas. Why go into the other Sections -IT, Telco, Postal, etc?. Again, my brief was to do total review of ALL sections - avoid being trapped in the over-hyped Media vs Govt debate because all the other sections are important too and could stand to benefit from a review. I attach the Program Outline which I posted on Day 1 and looks like you missed it (hence your suspicions?). Nevertheless, If members wish that we rest the discussion, I will close the discussion and move out of the Chair accordingly. ~~~~~~~#########Attached Program Outline########### Kenya Communication Ammendment Act –Online Discussion. Outline Description The Kenyan Government has enacted the Kenya Information and Communication Amendment Act (2009) - popularly known as the ICT Bill/Media Bill and KICTAnet invites comments on the same. Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder forum that aims to enhance collaboration between various Government, Private Sector, Civil Society, Academia and others interested in harnessing ICT for development. Program Setting & Description: The Act has the following major categories and shall be discussed as outlined below: i) Broadcasting & Media(3days) ii) Information Technology (2days) iii) Telecommunication & Radio (2days) iv) Postal (1day) v) Academia & Socio-Cultural (implied within text)-2days Members shall analyse the Act over a period of two weeks and submit their findings for subsequent consideration to the Ministry of Information and Communication. Aim: To understand the implications of the Act and make recommendations for improvement. Objective 1. To identify and list the possible gaps, amendments and additions within the Kenya Communication Ammendment Act Main Outcomes/Deliverables 1. Participants contributions as captured and stored within the Online Environment 2. Summarised contributions in terms of Action-Items (add, amend, delete) 3. Face-2-face workshop and Presentation to the ministry. Kick off today by inviting comments on the good aspects within the Broadcasting sections. Tomorrow we review the bad and make suggestions for amemdments improvements on Wednesday. Floor is open. walu. --- On Fri, 1/16/09, Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10-KCA 2008, IT Section - the Bad + Recommendations To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Friday, January 16, 2009, 3:57 PM Walu, This is getting a bit confusing for me. Besides changing 'subject lines', you are forcing a debate that is clearly non-existent. I am concerned about your game plan here. As you continue collecting opinion over the next one week and then draft a report over the other two weeks, will it not be too late to submit a petition??
Yesterday, the Computer Society of Kenya, Kenya ICT Federation, PRSK, ICT Consumer Association and a horde of other stakeholders submitted petitions to the Ministry at Laico Regency.
I feel this activity is not only slow and time barred, but it will bring a lot of confusion later if not drag us back to where we have just managed to come from. Has Kictanet sanctioned that what you gather here will be our official petition on the ICT Act?? Aren't we past that now??
-Kindly clarify Kictanet intentions with this Day X of Y debate you have triggered. -Has the Ministry asked for comments on the new ICT Law.
To the contrary, I think they are implementing the new law. Maybe your debate should be on action rather than commenting on a law process that has come to pass. Maybe commentary on how the new law will be put into practice. I am just confused....I could be wrong about your/kictanet intentions here.....
Thx, Bill
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 2:24 PM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanx David, I have noted your specific proposals...lets turn our attention to the bad things about the IT Section...
We need to review some of the concerns raised by the IT fraternity. Michuki raised one concerning the management of the internet domain names. Apparently all domain managers/registras must be licensed by CCK (Regulator) rather than KENIC (the current) managers for the .KE space. Two issues arise here (a) CCK Board is largely government selected and driven, whereas KENIC board is multi-stakeholder selected and driven. Do we therefore want only Govt to oversee the .KE space? What model should we have instead? Another thing noted is the fact that some domain management issue DO NOT NEED a license but clause 83D seems restraining in that all actions on a .KE and its subdomain would require a license. Quite difficult to enforce if you asked me...
The other issue I picked regards the liabilities of ISPs/ASPs or Infrastructure managers with regard to pornographic content. If you are an ISP and your customers downstream are spewing digital porn - you are as guilty as they are and good for the courts/jail (Clause 84D). The only comfort here is that this is a global and not a locally engineered challenge (remember internet governance issues?). So how do correctly apportion blame between content creators and content transmitters(pipes) as it were?
Finally, some of the e-Crimes cited have been found to be too restrictive, like 'hacking' with respect to software (84C) or mobile devices. Many techies will tell you that they need to hack in order to learn/innovate. The same way our Jua-kali mechanics learn how the car-engine works by breaking it apart. Unfortunately I have no immediate Recommendations to smoothen these issues but the floor is open for clarifications/recommendations. We have today and the weekend for this theme and on Monday we have a look at the Telecommunication aspects.
walu.
--- On Thu, 1/15/09, David Makali <dmakali@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: David Makali <dmakali@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] why bullying won't help To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: "kictanet" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Thursday, January 15, 2009, 5:33 PM Rebecca, I don't think you people are willing to listen to what the media is saying. And as long as you proceed with that bias, there is unlikely to be any constructive dialogue or debate about the actual issues - whcih i urge you to focus on. Blaming the media for not having acted properly (and am not defending it here) is not going to wash. First because you need to understand why the media resorted to certain actions, and secondly because you are conferring too much credit on the govt/ministry for what has happened or not happened. The fight, to use Bill Kaigai's words, is not even one between you (ICT people) who have jumped in between and the media, but between the media and the govt/parliament, particularly the ministry which is desperately trying to rope in everybody to its side in an unnecessary war against the media.
Who is bullying who? The media or the ministry which wants to legislate wapende wasipende, laws which we genuinely feel can be better?
First, the deputy speaker can not even justify that legislation. As it has emerged, most of those MPs had not read or were not awake to the implications of the bill that a few passed. And so we should sit back and fold our legs and say we can do nothing about it? That is relapsing to tyranny (Frankly, if you as me, parliament has effectively replaced the executive as the seat of dictatorship in our country. I am willing to defend that position anywhere.) If inded you followed the legislative process, you would have noticed by now that not a single amendment was taken by the MPs when the Bill went through the readings. Why? How democratic is that for Parliament. MPs should not lord it over everybody, and be haughty about their legslative power, when most of them know zilch about the legislation they pass. So, should the media be blamed for not trying when it raised its voice and made all manner of presentations to the VP, PM, Minsters, Parliamentary Committee? Are you aware that before the law was passed, the media had interceded with Kalonzo, Raila, Karua, Rege's Committee, and the Ministry of Information? So, it is not for want of trying that the media found itself in this situation.
I am surprised at your claim that we should have gone out to look for govermnent to ask if there was any legisation . Surely, are you serious? Is it the business of the media, or anyone else for that mater to go inquiring if the govt does not disclose if it has legislation coming on a particular sector? How come you want to excuse the ministry for that mischief, and blame Macharia instead for the offence of the ministry? I dont get it.
I must point out that since the beginning of the year, the ministry has been hellbent on controlling the media. It tried to usurp the role of the media council (i will come to that shortly) early last year but was repulsed. Eventually a task force to look at how to improve the media act to address its weaknesses was constituted, with a rep from the ministry. It had a short, one month period to discuss and produce recommendations for amendments. That was five months ago. Up to now, it has met only once, the deadline has been extended indefinitely. In the meantime, the ministry has succeeded in shoving through the Communications Act. Start by asking the ministry what is happening to the task force headed by Priscilla Nyokabi of ICJ, then may be you will begin to comprehend the media's beef with the ministry.
The point has been made that the media council has not been effective. That is again another lie. What is not being stated in all this hulla balloo of condemnation is that the media act was only passed in september 2007, and came into force in october, when elections were due in december. By then, the institution of the council charged with aribtrating complaints - the complaints commission - had not been formed! Nor the finances provided. Even so, what exactly does the act say? If does not give the council power to attack or interfere with media houses. It provides a mechanism for the public to respond to media content. It is not the Council to go after r police the media but the public to compain about what it is unhappy with or contrary to the code of ethics of journalism as provided in that media act. so to blame the media council for not acting is clearly wrong (even with the reasons given above). How many people actually know that the council is supposed to do? How many compaints has the council "received" apart from people whining in public. The procedures are all there - you write to the council to compain about a particular station or newspaper; the council summons the media house and gives it 14 days within which to repsond, then the matter goes before the complaints commission to arbitrate and make a finding and issue orders to be obeyed by the media house. That is as it should be. All parties are heard.
For your information, the complaints comission was formed three months ago and is now functional. It has received compalints, including from the govt, about some stations.
It is not correct ot say that the media are self-regulating or they have failed because that media council is a statory (read govt) body with media, govt and non media representation. The complaints commission is also a non-media body (the chair is a lawyer with qualifications required of a high court judge!) Please note - the era of self-regulation ended with the passage of the media act, 2007!
swhich is why the media has argued that the controls under the new comm act are parallel to what already exists, and all content issues should be moved under one statute.
For the purposes of moving forward, the media fraternity (MOA, editors guid) have made very specific proposals for amending the Act, among them the following: 1. to move the whole broadcasting section hived off and moved to the media act, and should that not be possible or even after so doing; 2. restrict the coding envisaged in sect 46 to entertainment programs (so as to preserve the editorial independence of the media) and scope to be restricted to adult content, religious programs, decency etc and such code to be dranw up in consultation with the media council. 3. improve on the compsosition of the comm commission by requiring the minister to appoint to the commission people nominated by sectors of stakeholders, including the chair of the media council 4. disengage the minister form issuing directives to the commission 5. reduce the heavy fines provided for offences under the act 6. move all the complaints related to content from the act to the media act, and keep those related to violations of infrastructure nd licencing issues to the comm commission, which should be left with the management of frequencies and infrastructure. 7 amend the media act appropriately to acccommodate the above changes, and additional responsibilities, and provide for funding.
Surely, these proposals are not designed to protect the media or shield it from any criticism, but make it accountable but still independent, not a lapdog of the govt.
I hope this is not outrageous or offending to the ICT fraternity. ~David
--- On Thu, 1/15/09, Rebecca Wanjiku <rebeccawanjiku@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Rebecca Wanjiku <rebeccawanjiku@yahoo.com> Subject: why bullying won't help To: dmakali@yahoo.com Cc: "kictanet" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Thursday, January 15, 2009, 12:27 AM Makali,
I have been involved in the policy making process in the ICT sector both locally and within the WSIS process. So, allow me to make some observations.
I was at the forum on Tuesday and agreed with the deputy speaker that the media is bullying Parliamentarians and expecting Parliament to pass the law in their favour.....Bill put it better than I can. You can read my opinion
During the meeting, it became clear the
perhaps do what other sectors did in terms of lobbying in the process. Section 88 has been there since 1998, is
the time the media has just realized that?
During the drafting process, various sectors are asked to amend or draft clauses that do not suit them and
media did not this present
what they would want the clauses to read. Was the media involved in the drafting process? I think it is wrong for the media to assume that the government or
should have understood the issues or implications while they were not there. I was shocked when Macharia Gaitho said on Tuesday
sectors that
when they were in Mombasa discussion the FOI
said that that is all there is regarding media, that
was no other act concerning the media. I wondered, did
ministry there the
media stakeholders expect the government to look out for them?
The bone of contention is the power given to
council and the financing, parties should come together and say how they plan to finance it and give it teeth. This way, all the concerns will be addressed squarely.
If our (media) concerns is the libel and the flimsy grounds that people institute cases and win awards, I think the next stage is for the media to lobby for the amendment of the judicature act chapter 35 (am not sure) which deals with defamation and shift the burden of proof to
more like the amendments to the UK laws, which we inherited and have never amended.
This way, the laws will be harmonized to take care of all concerns and interests. Gaitho put it very clearly
media is not aganist regulation but control. This is
complainant, that the the
time to pursue regulation mechanisms and put
http://beckyit.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-it-s-hard-to-sympathize-with-media.h... the other the the media the them in
place.
regards
Tel. 254 720 318 925
blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/
________________________________ From: "dmakali@yahoo.com" <dmakali@yahoo.com> To: rebeccawanjiku@yahoo.com Cc: kictanet
<kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 9:28:14 PM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Makali's response to brian longwe: KCA2008-Broadcasting-The Recommendations
Why is it me? That msg frm maloy makes sense to you? Why don't you see anything wrong with that msg. Get real, Bill.
Sent from my BlackBerry(R) wireless device
-----Original Message----- From: Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:45:28 To: <dmakali@yahoo.com> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy
Discussions<kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>
Subject: Re: [kictanet] Makali's response to brian longwe: KCA 2008-Broadcasting-The Recommendations
kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: dmakali@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/dmakali%40yahoo.com
kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to:
rebeccawanjiku@yahoo.com
Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/rebeccawanjiku%40yahoo....
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: billkagai@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/billkagai%40gmail.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
If i may contribute to this exchange i think the discussion is important Bill. The Law is already in place , however everyone seems to be having their own opinion on the Pro's and Cons of the New law which is counterproductive in the long run for the sector.Dont forget there are vested interests and sideshows in this whole Law issue, as practitioners it is important that we are all informed on the benefits (or good tidings) that the new new law brings and the challenges it might bring to the sector in the long run.In short as others are submitting their petitions let the debate continue, we were challenged at the Hilton Forum to embrace Research and the kind of information being exchanged on this forum is of utmost importance to all members. On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:55 PM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill,
I have no game plan, I am an Academician and so find that I am able to look at this issues from each stakeholders perspective relatively objectively - and yes my effort was 'duly' commissioned by the KICTANet National Cordinator - though not digitally signed :-(.
This 10day exercise is not intended in anywway to undermine any other 'fact-finding' exercise and I believe the Ministry (of Info) does have the resources to multi-task and receive ideas from face-2-face workshops, online workshops, et al.
With regard to timeliness - last I heard was that Wako (AG) and/or Parliament can only begin to debate the suggested recommendations/proposals in April 2009 under a new Bill. So my take is that we have enough time for KICTAnet, ISACA and/or any other Stakeholder to submit their ideas.
Why go into the other Sections -IT, Telco, Postal, etc?. Again, my brief was to do total review of ALL sections - avoid being trapped in the over-hyped Media vs Govt debate because all the other sections are important too and could stand to benefit from a review.
I attach the Program Outline which I posted on Day 1 and looks like you missed it (hence your suspicions?). Nevertheless, If members wish that we rest the discussion, I will close the discussion and move out of the Chair accordingly.
~~~~~~~#########Attached Program Outline###########
Kenya Communication Ammendment Act –Online Discussion.
Outline Description The Kenyan Government has enacted the Kenya Information and Communication Amendment Act (2009) - popularly known as the ICT Bill/Media Bill and KICTAnet invites comments on the same. Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder forum that aims to enhance collaboration between various Government, Private Sector, Civil Society, Academia and others interested in harnessing ICT for development.
Program Setting & Description:
The Act has the following major categories and shall be discussed as outlined below: i) Broadcasting & Media(3days) ii) Information Technology (2days) iii) Telecommunication & Radio (2days) iv) Postal (1day) v) Academia & Socio-Cultural (implied within text)-2days
Members shall analyse the Act over a period of two weeks and submit their findings for subsequent consideration to the Ministry of Information and Communication.
Aim: To understand the implications of the Act and make recommendations for improvement.
Objective 1. To identify and list the possible gaps, amendments and additions within the Kenya Communication Ammendment Act
Main Outcomes/Deliverables 1. Participants contributions as captured and stored within the Online Environment 2. Summarised contributions in terms of Action-Items (add, amend, delete) 3. Face-2-face workshop and Presentation to the ministry.
Kick off today by inviting comments on the good aspects within the Broadcasting sections. Tomorrow we review the bad and make suggestions for amemdments improvements on Wednesday. Floor is open.
walu.
--- On Fri, 1/16/09, Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10-KCA 2008, IT Section - the Bad + Recommendations To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Friday, January 16, 2009, 3:57 PM Walu, This is getting a bit confusing for me. Besides changing 'subject lines', you are forcing a debate that is clearly non-existent. I am concerned about your game plan here. As you continue collecting opinion over the next one week and then draft a report over the other two weeks, will it not be too late to submit a petition??
Yesterday, the Computer Society of Kenya, Kenya ICT Federation, PRSK, ICT Consumer Association and a horde of other stakeholders submitted petitions to the Ministry at Laico Regency.
I feel this activity is not only slow and time barred, but it will bring a lot of confusion later if not drag us back to where we have just managed to come from. Has Kictanet sanctioned that what you gather here will be our official petition on the ICT Act?? Aren't we past that now??
-Kindly clarify Kictanet intentions with this Day X of Y debate you have triggered. -Has the Ministry asked for comments on the new ICT Law.
To the contrary, I think they are implementing the new law. Maybe your debate should be on action rather than commenting on a law process that has come to pass. Maybe commentary on how the new law will be put into practice. I am just confused....I could be wrong about your/kictanet intentions here.....
Thx, Bill
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 2:24 PM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanx David, I have noted your specific proposals...lets turn our attention to the bad things about the IT Section...
We need to review some of the concerns raised by the IT fraternity. Michuki raised one concerning the management of the internet domain names. Apparently all domain managers/registras must be licensed by CCK (Regulator) rather than KENIC (the current) managers for the .KE space. Two issues arise here (a) CCK Board is largely government selected and driven, whereas KENIC board is multi-stakeholder selected and driven. Do we therefore want only Govt to oversee the .KE space? What model should we have instead? Another thing noted is the fact that some domain management issue DO NOT NEED a license but clause 83D seems restraining in that all actions on a .KE and its subdomain would require a license. Quite difficult to enforce if you asked me...
The other issue I picked regards the liabilities of ISPs/ASPs or Infrastructure managers with regard to pornographic content. If you are an ISP and your customers downstream are spewing digital porn - you are as guilty as they are and good for the courts/jail (Clause 84D). The only comfort here is that this is a global and not a locally engineered challenge (remember internet governance issues?). So how do correctly apportion blame between content creators and content transmitters(pipes) as it were?
Finally, some of the e-Crimes cited have been found to be too restrictive, like 'hacking' with respect to software (84C) or mobile devices. Many techies will tell you that they need to hack in order to learn/innovate. The same way our Jua-kali mechanics learn how the car-engine works by breaking it apart. Unfortunately I have no immediate Recommendations to smoothen these issues but the floor is open for clarifications/recommendations. We have today and the weekend for this theme and on Monday we have a look at the Telecommunication aspects.
walu.
--- On Thu, 1/15/09, David Makali <dmakali@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: David Makali <dmakali@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] why bullying won't help To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: "kictanet" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Thursday, January 15, 2009, 5:33 PM Rebecca, I don't think you people are willing to listen to what the media is saying. And as long as you proceed with that bias, there is unlikely to be any constructive dialogue or debate about the actual issues - whcih i urge you to focus on. Blaming the media for not having acted properly (and am not defending it here) is not going to wash. First because you need to understand why the media resorted to certain actions, and secondly because you are conferring too much credit on the govt/ministry for what has happened or not happened. The fight, to use Bill Kaigai's words, is not even one between you (ICT people) who have jumped in between and the media, but between the media and the govt/parliament, particularly the ministry which is desperately trying to rope in everybody to its side in an unnecessary war against the media.
Who is bullying who? The media or the ministry which wants to legislate wapende wasipende, laws which we genuinely feel can be better?
First, the deputy speaker can not even justify that legislation. As it has emerged, most of those MPs had not read or were not awake to the implications of the bill that a few passed. And so we should sit back and fold our legs and say we can do nothing about it? That is relapsing to tyranny (Frankly, if you as me, parliament has effectively replaced the executive as the seat of dictatorship in our country. I am willing to defend that position anywhere.) If inded you followed the legislative process, you would have noticed by now that not a single amendment was taken by the MPs when the Bill went through the readings. Why? How democratic is that for Parliament. MPs should not lord it over everybody, and be haughty about their legslative power, when most of them know zilch about the legislation they pass. So, should the media be blamed for not trying when it raised its voice and made all manner of presentations to the VP, PM, Minsters, Parliamentary Committee? Are you aware that before the law was passed, the media had interceded with Kalonzo, Raila, Karua, Rege's Committee, and the Ministry of Information? So, it is not for want of trying that the media found itself in this situation.
I am surprised at your claim that we should have gone out to look for govermnent to ask if there was any legisation . Surely, are you serious? Is it the business of the media, or anyone else for that mater to go inquiring if the govt does not disclose if it has legislation coming on a particular sector? How come you want to excuse the ministry for that mischief, and blame Macharia instead for the offence of the ministry? I dont get it.
I must point out that since the beginning of the year, the ministry has been hellbent on controlling the media. It tried to usurp the role of the media council (i will come to that shortly) early last year but was repulsed. Eventually a task force to look at how to improve the media act to address its weaknesses was constituted, with a rep from the ministry. It had a short, one month period to discuss and produce recommendations for amendments. That was five months ago. Up to now, it has met only once, the deadline has been extended indefinitely. In the meantime, the ministry has succeeded in shoving through the Communications Act. Start by asking the ministry what is happening to the task force headed by Priscilla Nyokabi of ICJ, then may be you will begin to comprehend the media's beef with the ministry.
The point has been made that the media council has not been effective. That is again another lie. What is not being stated in all this hulla balloo of condemnation is that the media act was only passed in september 2007, and came into force in october, when elections were due in december. By then, the institution of the council charged with aribtrating complaints - the complaints commission - had not been formed! Nor the finances provided. Even so, what exactly does the act say? If does not give the council power to attack or interfere with media houses. It provides a mechanism for the public to respond to media content. It is not the Council to go after r police the media but the public to compain about what it is unhappy with or contrary to the code of ethics of journalism as provided in that media act. so to blame the media council for not acting is clearly wrong (even with the reasons given above). How many people actually know that the council is supposed to do? How many compaints has the council "received" apart from people whining in public. The procedures are all there - you write to the council to compain about a particular station or newspaper; the council summons the media house and gives it 14 days within which to repsond, then the matter goes before the complaints commission to arbitrate and make a finding and issue orders to be obeyed by the media house. That is as it should be. All parties are heard.
For your information, the complaints comission was formed three months ago and is now functional. It has received compalints, including from the govt, about some stations.
It is not correct ot say that the media are self-regulating or they have failed because that media council is a statory (read govt) body with media, govt and non media representation. The complaints commission is also a non-media body (the chair is a lawyer with qualifications required of a high court judge!) Please note - the era of self-regulation ended with the passage of the media act, 2007!
swhich is why the media has argued that the controls under the new comm act are parallel to what already exists, and all content issues should be moved under one statute.
For the purposes of moving forward, the media fraternity (MOA, editors guid) have made very specific proposals for amending the Act, among them the following: 1. to move the whole broadcasting section hived off and moved to the media act, and should that not be possible or even after so doing; 2. restrict the coding envisaged in sect 46 to entertainment programs (so as to preserve the editorial independence of the media) and scope to be restricted to adult content, religious programs, decency etc and such code to be dranw up in consultation with the media council. 3. improve on the compsosition of the comm commission by requiring the minister to appoint to the commission people nominated by sectors of stakeholders, including the chair of the media council 4. disengage the minister form issuing directives to the commission 5. reduce the heavy fines provided for offences under the act 6. move all the complaints related to content from the act to the media act, and keep those related to violations of infrastructure nd licencing issues to the comm commission, which should be left with the management of frequencies and infrastructure. 7 amend the media act appropriately to acccommodate the above changes, and additional responsibilities, and provide for funding.
Surely, these proposals are not designed to protect the media or shield it from any criticism, but make it accountable but still independent, not a lapdog of the govt.
I hope this is not outrageous or offending to the ICT fraternity. ~David
--- On Thu, 1/15/09, Rebecca Wanjiku <rebeccawanjiku@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Rebecca Wanjiku <rebeccawanjiku@yahoo.com> Subject: why bullying won't help To: dmakali@yahoo.com Cc: "kictanet" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Thursday, January 15, 2009, 12:27 AM Makali,
I have been involved in the policy making process in the ICT sector both locally and within the WSIS process. So, allow me to make some observations.
I was at the forum on Tuesday and agreed with the deputy speaker that the media is bullying Parliamentarians and expecting Parliament to pass the law in their favour.....Bill put it better than I can. You can read my opinion
http://beckyit.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-it-s-hard-to-sympathize-with-media.h...
During the meeting, it became clear the
perhaps do what other sectors did in terms of lobbying in the process. Section 88 has been there since 1998, is
the time the media has just realized that?
During the drafting process, various sectors are asked to amend or draft clauses that do not suit them and
what they would want the clauses to read. Was the media involved in the drafting process? I think it is wrong for the media to assume that the government or
should have understood the issues or implications while they were not there. I was shocked when Macharia Gaitho said on Tuesday
when they were in Mombasa discussion the FOI
said that that is all there is regarding media, that
was no other act concerning the media. I wondered, did
media stakeholders expect the government to look out for them?
The bone of contention is the power given to
council and the financing, parties should come together and say how they plan to finance it and give it teeth. This way, all the concerns will be addressed squarely.
If our (media) concerns is the libel and the flimsy grounds that people institute cases and win awards, I think
stage is for the media to lobby for the amendment of
judicature act chapter 35 (am not sure) which deals with defamation and shift the burden of proof to
more like the amendments to the UK laws, which we inherited and have never amended.
This way, the laws will be harmonized to take care of all concerns and interests. Gaitho put it very clearly
media is not aganist regulation but control. This is
time to pursue regulation mechanisms and put
media did not this present the other sectors that the ministry there the the media the next the the complainant, that the the them in place.
regards
Tel. 254 720 318 925
blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/
________________________________ From: "dmakali@yahoo.com" <dmakali@yahoo.com> To: rebeccawanjiku@yahoo.com Cc: kictanet
<kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 9:28:14 PM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Makali's response to brian longwe: KCA2008-Broadcasting-The Recommendations
Why is it me? That msg frm maloy makes sense to you? Why don't you see anything wrong with that msg. Get real, Bill.
Sent from my BlackBerry(R) wireless device
-----Original Message----- From: Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:45:28 To: <dmakali@yahoo.com> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy
Discussions<kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>
Subject: Re: [kictanet] Makali's response to brian longwe: KCA 2008-Broadcasting-The Recommendations
kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: dmakali@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/dmakali%40yahoo.com
kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to:
rebeccawanjiku@yahoo.com
Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/rebeccawanjiku%40yahoo....
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: billkagai@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/billkagai%40gmail.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: otieno.barrack@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail....
-- Barrack O. Otieno ISSEN CONSULTING Tel: +254721325277 +254726544442 +254733206359 www.issenconsult.com http://projectdiscovery.or.ke To give up the task of reforming society is to give up ones responsibility as a free man. Alan Paton, South Africa
Realizing no law is carved in stone-all are changeable including the Constitution, Irrespective of varied stakeholders interests lobbying, advocacy, or discussions, Recalling Deputy Speaker's eloquently stated "ipso facto" principle, Cognizant of new law requirements, aware ignorance is inexcusable, In observing universally accepted, democratic 'Rule of Law' principle. Implementation capacity building includes ICT expertise-legal convergence, Exploring digitally efficient, well-ICT-equipped judicial system infrastructure, Best practices advice and technical capacity to industry for compliance, Consumers advisory on various issues therein, ICT-Legal resource to professionals and the public, The Centre for Law in ICT Administration-Claw-IT (est.2003) invites, Like-minded legal practitioners, technologists and academicians, Stakeholders with demonstrable process value-add propositions, To collaboration for mutual benefit and clearer legal implications. If interested contact me off-list gakuru@gmail.com. Spread the word. Thank you Alex Gakuru On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
If i may contribute to this exchange i think the discussion is important Bill. The Law is already in place , however everyone seems to be having their own opinion on the Pro's and Cons of the New law which is counterproductive in the long run for the sector.Dont forget there are vested interests and sideshows in this whole Law issue, as practitioners it is important that we are all informed on the benefits (or good tidings) that the new new law brings and the challenges it might bring to the sector in the long run.In short as others are submitting their petitions let the debate continue, we were challenged at the Hilton Forum to embrace Research and the kind of information being exchanged on this forum is of utmost importance to all members.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:55 PM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
OK, I am convinced. This discussion is to do with research and I commend that. The only catch I can foresee is captured very well by Physicist Dr. Angeyo Kalambuka...quoting him verbatim, *[However, normally, academics look backward to find lessons; policymakers look ahead and often must improvise. Academics can wait until all the facts are in; policymakers cannot. The time horizon of academics may be years; the horizon of policymakers, weeks, days, even hours.]* Source - http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/-/440808/513790/-/428722/-/index.html This is the key difference between David Makali and co. (who are making things happen and shaping the future) and 'us' who are waiting to derive research from the action Media policy makers take. That is why they are a step ahead of us. Walu is our Academician. Where are our policy makers who will influence our future?? Bill On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com>wrote:
If i may contribute to this exchange i think the discussion is important Bill. The Law is already in place , however everyone seems to be having their own opinion on the Pro's and Cons of the New law which is counterproductive in the long run for the sector.Dont forget there are vested interests and sideshows in this whole Law issue, as practitioners it is important that we are all informed on the benefits (or good tidings) that the new new law brings and the challenges it might bring to the sector in the long run.In short as others are submitting their petitions let the debate continue, we were challenged at the Hilton Forum to embrace Research and the kind of information being exchanged on this forum is of utmost importance to all members.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:55 PM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill,
I have no game plan, I am an Academician and so find that I am able to look at this issues from each stakeholders perspective relatively objectively - and yes my effort was 'duly' commissioned by the KICTANet National Cordinator - though not digitally signed :-(.
This 10day exercise is not intended in anywway to undermine any other 'fact-finding' exercise and I believe the Ministry (of Info) does have the resources to multi-task and receive ideas from face-2-face workshops, online workshops, et al.
With regard to timeliness - last I heard was that Wako (AG) and/or Parliament can only begin to debate the suggested recommendations/proposals in April 2009 under a new Bill. So my take is that we have enough time for KICTAnet, ISACA and/or any other Stakeholder to submit their ideas.
Why go into the other Sections -IT, Telco, Postal, etc?. Again, my brief was to do total review of ALL sections - avoid being trapped in the over-hyped Media vs Govt debate because all the other sections are important too and could stand to benefit from a review.
I attach the Program Outline which I posted on Day 1 and looks like you missed it (hence your suspicions?). Nevertheless, If members wish that we rest the discussion, I will close the discussion and move out of the Chair accordingly.
I do agree with the authors (I believe from an IDRC publication) who wrote ".....the link between policy research and policy-making is non-linear. Researchers must be flexible and agile in their timing and approaches if they are to influence economic policies. They should be willing and able to re-assess the situation at any point in time, and to re-visit their course of action or strategy". Failing to plan is planning to fail. Research is not for research sake; research should and can inform policy. Many research centres were created in response to the need to develop policies that are home-grown, given the context of the failures of imported policies. Many policymakers run back to the very researchers who they would listened to in the first place to ensure they work in partnership; however researchers must work in a timely manner. Essentially, Walu, is on the right track. Best, Nyaki ________________________________ From: Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> To: elizaslider@yahoo.com Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 11:23:42 AM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10-KCA 2008, IT Section - the Bad + Recommendations OK, I am convinced. This discussion is to do with research and I commend that. The only catch I can foresee is captured very well by Physicist Dr. Angeyo Kalambuka...quoting him verbatim, [However, normally, academics look backward to find lessons; policymakers look ahead and often must improvise. Academics can wait until all the facts are in; policymakers cannot. The time horizon of academics may be years; the horizon of policymakers, weeks, days, even hours.] Source - http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/-/440808/513790/-/428722/-/index.html This is the key difference between David Makali and co. (who are making things happen and shaping the future) and 'us' who are waiting to derive research from the action Media policy makers take. That is why they are a step ahead of us. Walu is our Academician. Where are our policy makers who will influence our future?? Bill On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote: If i may contribute to this exchange i think the discussion is important Bill. The Law is already in place , however everyone seems to be having their own opinion on the Pro's and Cons of the New law which is counterproductive in the long run for the sector.Dont forget there are vested interests and sideshows in this whole Law issue, as practitioners it is important that we are all informed on the benefits (or good tidings) that the new new law brings and the challenges it might bring to the sector in the long run.In short as others are submitting their petitions let the debate continue, we were challenged at the Hilton Forum to embrace Research and the kind of information being exchanged on this forum is of utmost importance to all members. On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:55 PM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote: Bill, I have no game plan, I am an Academician and so find that I am able to look at this issues from each stakeholders perspective relatively objectively - and yes my effort was 'duly' commissioned by the KICTANet National Cordinator - though not digitally signed :-(. This 10day exercise is not intended in anywway to undermine any other 'fact-finding' exercise and I believe the Ministry (of Info) does have the resources to multi-task and receive ideas from face-2-face workshops, online workshops, et al. With regard to timeliness - last I heard was that Wako (AG) and/or Parliament can only begin to debate the suggested recommendations/proposals in April 2009 under a new Bill. So my take is that we have enough time for KICTAnet, ISACA and/or any other Stakeholder to submit their ideas. Why go into the other Sections -IT, Telco, Postal, etc?. Again, my brief was to do total review of ALL sections - avoid being trapped in the over-hyped Media vs Govt debate because all the other sections are important too and could stand to benefit from a review. I attach the Program Outline which I posted on Day 1 and looks like you missed it (hence your suspicions?). Nevertheless, If members wish that we rest the discussion, I will close the discussion and move out of the Chair accordingly.
A few points for discussion, for the sake of research: The concept behind research is to take a large amount of information, compile it in a reasonable way and share it for educational purposes. Policy makers need to read research for a variety of sources before they make decisions. What may be missing from this discussion is the research from the development community that illustrates how ICTs when utilized properly can benefit the people. But when content developers (aka the media) and others are not free to express their research (stories) without arbitrary censorship, a country puts it self at risk. Please see *Development as Freedom* by Amaryta Sen, foremost economist on development and freedom, winner of the Nobel prize in Economics, and Sen's work on how democracy and a free media have prevented famine in India. One question for Walu, how many people have to be on the brink of starvation before the title FAMINE applies? A few suggestions: *So what are some definitions of famine?* • According to Médecins Sans Frontières, famine is a situation where more than five people in 10,000 are dying every day. • USAID says a famine is a "catastrophic food crisis that results in widespread acute malnutrition and mass mortality. It is a process, rather than an event, with a beginning, a middle and an end." • The World Food Programme says a famine occurs when a serious food crisis is made worse by "governments' failure to deal with the situation". In most of the 80 countries where WFP operates, people are on the brink of a food crisis. • Nigerien President Mamadou Tandja put it this way in an interview in August with the BBC: "There are three signs of a famine: when people are leaving the countryside and going to live in shantytowns; people are leaving the country; and there are beggars all over the place. Those three things do not exist in Niger at the present time." • Devereux and Howe suggest this definition: "Famine is where the number of people dying is between 2-4 people per 10,000 population per day, and/or wasting is between 20-40 percent (that is the proportion of children aged between six months and five years old who are less than 80 percent of the average weight-for-height). Coping strategies are exhausted and people adopt survival strategies. Markets begin to close or collapse." So where does Kenya fit into this equation? According to the World Bank, one of the primary funding agencies for ICTs for development in Kenya the infant mortality rate has been on the rise for the last 10 years. As of their 2007, Millennium Development Goals report the infant mortality rate is up to 79 out of 1,000. That was before the post-election violence, drought, and crop failure. I am sure it is much higher as I know of three children who have died in the last week in Likoni. The under five mortality is up to 121 per 1,000. Unfortunately the data for the poverty reduction of Goal 1 is missing from the dataset as if the figure for malnutrition. However if you compare the Kenyan Bureau of Statistics numbers such as poverty in Ganze constiuency in Coastal province, you will see that the malnutrition is rampant. As for survival strategies and rural to urban migration just take a look at the child prostituion trade at the Coast and the burdgening population and insecurity in Likoni. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AFRICAEXT/KENYAEXTN/0,,menuPK:356536~pagePK:141132~piPK:141109~theSitePK:356509,00.html<http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AFRICAEXT/KENYAEXTN/0,,menuPK:356536%7EpagePK:141132%7EpiPK:141109%7EtheSitePK:356509,00.html> With 10 million people on the brink of starvation, roughly one third of the country, I would in my professional opinion call it a famine. So where does this fit into the policy? Again according to the World Bank, The vision of the ICT policy in Kenya is to become "an e-enabloed and knowledge based society by 2015." Their mission is "to use ICT to improve the livelihoods of the people of Kenya and opitmize its contribution to the economy." http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PSGLP/Resources/ICTPolicyandKenya.pdf SO... If these are the goals of the ICT policy then why haven't the people received any share of the $116 million in World Bank loans given to the government? Would a country on its way to becoming a knowledge based society chose to curb the voice of the media if they had the priorites of the people in mind? Really, I just wanted to share some of the thoughts rambling around in my head as I watch the children in my village starve... Any thoughts from anyone else? Many blessings, Crystal On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Catherine Adeya <elizaslider@yahoo.com>wrote:
I do agree with the authors (I believe from an IDRC publication) who wrote ".....the link between policy research and policy-making is non-linear. Researchers must be flexible and agile in their timing and approaches if they are to influence economic policies. They should be willing and able to re-assess the situation at any point in time, and to re-visit their course of action or strategy".
Failing to plan is planning to fail. Research is not for research sake; research should and can inform policy. Many research centres were created in response to the need to develop policies that are home-grown, given the context of the failures of imported policies. Many policymakers run back to the very researchers who they would listened to in the first place to ensure they work in partnership; however researchers must work in a timely manner. Essentially, Walu, is on the right track.
Best,
Nyaki
------------------------------ *From:* Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> *To:* elizaslider@yahoo.com *Cc:* KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> *Sent:* Saturday, January 17, 2009 11:23:42 AM *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10-KCA 2008, IT Section - the Bad + Recommendations
OK, I am convinced. This discussion is to do with research and I commend that. The only catch I can foresee is captured very well by Physicist Dr. Angeyo Kalambuka...quoting him verbatim,
*[However, normally, academics look backward to find lessons; policymakers look ahead and often must improvise. Academics can wait until all the facts are in; policymakers cannot. The time horizon of academics may be years; the horizon of policymakers, weeks, days, even hours.]*
Source - http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/-/440808/513790/-/428722/-/index.html
This is the key difference between David Makali and co. (who are making things happen and shaping the future) and 'us' who are waiting to derive research from the action Media policy makers take. That is why they are a step ahead of us. Walu is our Academician. Where are our policy makers who will influence our future??
Bill
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com>wrote:
If i may contribute to this exchange i think the discussion is important Bill. The Law is already in place , however everyone seems to be having their own opinion on the Pro's and Cons of the New law which is counterproductive in the long run for the sector.Dont forget there are vested interests and sideshows in this whole Law issue, as practitioners it is important that we are all informed on the benefits (or good tidings) that the new new law brings and the challenges it might bring to the sector in the long run.In short as others are submitting their petitions let the debate continue, we were challenged at the Hilton Forum to embrace Research and the kind of information being exchanged on this forum is of utmost importance to all members.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:55 PM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill,
I have no game plan, I am an Academician and so find that I am able to look at this issues from each stakeholders perspective relatively objectively - and yes my effort was 'duly' commissioned by the KICTANet National Cordinator - though not digitally signed :-(.
This 10day exercise is not intended in anywway to undermine any other 'fact-finding' exercise and I believe the Ministry (of Info) does have the resources to multi-task and receive ideas from face-2-face workshops, online workshops, et al.
With regard to timeliness - last I heard was that Wako (AG) and/or Parliament can only begin to debate the suggested recommendations/proposals in April 2009 under a new Bill. So my take is that we have enough time for KICTAnet, ISACA and/or any other Stakeholder to submit their ideas.
Why go into the other Sections -IT, Telco, Postal, etc?. Again, my brief was to do total review of ALL sections - avoid being trapped in the over-hyped Media vs Govt debate because all the other sections are important too and could stand to benefit from a review.
I attach the Program Outline which I posted on Day 1 and looks like you missed it (hence your suspicions?). Nevertheless, If members wish that we rest the discussion, I will close the discussion and move out of the Chair accordingly.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: crystal@voicesofafrica.org Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/crystal%40voicesofafric...
-- Crystal "Naliaka" Watley Voices of Africa crystal@voicesofafrica.org http://www.voicesofafrica.org/ "You must be the change you wish to see" - Gandhi
Bill, Nyaki et al, You got me been thinking...we have NOT been asking Listers on what THEY want discussed. No wonder participation/contributions have been declining over the years... I just thought we should do a reality check and ask - should we discuss the Kenya Communications Act 2008 in totality or we just wrap up what has been said so far? We are over 300 Listers and I only need at least (10%) that is 30 'Ayes or Yes' votes between now and end of tomorrow (Tue 20th Jan 2009) in order to continue. eMail in your vote to the LIST (transparency), starting now and I will just do the tallying - i will avoid Form16A ;-). walu. Let the people decide. --- On Sun, 1/18/09, Catherine Adeya <elizaslider@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Catherine Adeya <elizaslider@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10-KCA 2008, IT Section - the Bad + Recommendations To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Sunday, January 18, 2009, 1:16 AM I do agree with the authors (I believe from an IDRC publication) who wrote ".....the link between policy research and policy-making is non-linear. Researchers must be flexible and agile in their timing and approaches if they are to influence economic policies. They should be willing and able to re-assess the situation at any point in time, and to re-visit their course of action or strategy".
Failing to plan is planning to fail. Research is not for research sake; research should and can inform policy. Many research centres were created in response to the need to develop policies that are home-grown, given the context of the failures of imported policies. Many policymakers run back to the very researchers who they would listened to in the first place to ensure they work in partnership; however researchers must work in a timely manner. Essentially, Walu, is on the right track.
Best,
Nyaki
________________________________ From: Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> To: elizaslider@yahoo.com Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 11:23:42 AM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10-KCA 2008, IT Section - the Bad + Recommendations
OK, I am convinced. This discussion is to do with research and I commend that. The only catch I can foresee is captured very well by Physicist Dr. Angeyo Kalambuka...quoting him verbatim,
[However, normally, academics look backward to find lessons; policymakers look ahead and often must improvise. Academics can wait until all the facts are in; policymakers cannot. The time horizon of academics may be years; the horizon of policymakers, weeks, days, even hours.]
Source - http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/-/440808/513790/-/428722/-/index.html
This is the key difference between David Makali and co. (who are making things happen and shaping the future) and 'us' who are waiting to derive research from the action Media policy makers take. That is why they are a step ahead of us. Walu is our Academician. Where are our policy makers who will influence our future??
Bill
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
If i may contribute to this exchange i think the discussion is important Bill. The Law is already in place , however everyone seems to be having their own opinion on the Pro's and Cons of the New law which is counterproductive in the long run for the sector.Dont forget there are vested interests and sideshows in this whole Law issue, as practitioners it is important that we are all informed on the benefits (or good tidings) that the new new law brings and the challenges it might bring to the sector in the long run.In short as others are submitting their petitions let the debate continue, we were challenged at the Hilton Forum to embrace Research and the kind of information being exchanged on this forum is of utmost importance to all members.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:55 PM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill,
I have no game plan, I am an Academician and so find that I am able to look at this issues from each stakeholders perspective relatively objectively - and yes my effort was 'duly' commissioned by the KICTANet National Cordinator - though not digitally signed :-(.
This 10day exercise is not intended in anywway to undermine any other 'fact-finding' exercise and I believe the Ministry (of Info) does have the resources to multi-task and receive ideas from face-2-face workshops, online workshops, et al.
With regard to timeliness - last I heard was that Wako (AG) and/or Parliament can only begin to debate the suggested recommendations/proposals in April 2009 under a new Bill. So my take is that we have enough time for KICTAnet, ISACA and/or any other Stakeholder to submit their ideas.
Why go into the other Sections -IT, Telco, Postal, etc?. Again, my brief was to do total review of ALL sections - avoid being trapped in the over-hyped Media vs Govt debate because all the other sections are important too and could stand to benefit from a review.
I attach the Program Outline which I posted on Day 1 and looks like you missed it (hence your suspicions?). Nevertheless, If members wish that we rest the discussion, I will close the discussion and move out of the Chair accordingly.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
Walu, it appears there is fatigue since the discussion has been conducted in multiple forums throughout last week. Tusiendelee On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 12:01 PM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill, Nyaki et al,
You got me been thinking...we have NOT been asking Listers on what THEY want discussed. No wonder participation/contributions have been declining over the years...
I just thought we should do a reality check and ask - should we discuss the Kenya Communications Act 2008 in totality or we just wrap up what has been said so far?
We are over 300 Listers and I only need at least (10%) that is 30 'Ayes or Yes' votes between now and end of tomorrow (Tue 20th Jan 2009) in order to continue.
eMail in your vote to the LIST (transparency), starting now and I will just do the tallying - i will avoid Form16A ;-).
walu. Let the people decide.
--- On Sun, 1/18/09, Catherine Adeya <elizaslider@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Catherine Adeya <elizaslider@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10-KCA 2008, IT Section - the Bad + Recommendations To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Sunday, January 18, 2009, 1:16 AM I do agree with the authors (I believe from an IDRC publication) who wrote ".....the link between policy research and policy-making is non-linear. Researchers must be flexible and agile in their timing and approaches if they are to influence economic policies. They should be willing and able to re-assess the situation at any point in time, and to re-visit their course of action or strategy".
Failing to plan is planning to fail. Research is not for research sake; research should and can inform policy. Many research centres were created in response to the need to develop policies that are home-grown, given the context of the failures of imported policies. Many policymakers run back to the very researchers who they would listened to in the first place to ensure they work in partnership; however researchers must work in a timely manner. Essentially, Walu, is on the right track.
Best,
Nyaki
________________________________ From: Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> To: elizaslider@yahoo.com Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 11:23:42 AM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10-KCA 2008, IT Section - the Bad + Recommendations
OK, I am convinced. This discussion is to do with research and I commend that. The only catch I can foresee is captured very well by Physicist Dr. Angeyo Kalambuka...quoting him verbatim,
[However, normally, academics look backward to find lessons; policymakers look ahead and often must improvise. Academics can wait until all the facts are in; policymakers cannot. The time horizon of academics may be years; the horizon of policymakers, weeks, days, even hours.]
Source -
http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/-/440808/513790/-/428722/-/index.html
This is the key difference between David Makali and co. (who are making things happen and shaping the future) and 'us' who are waiting to derive research from the action Media policy makers take. That is why they are a step ahead of us. Walu is our Academician. Where are our policy makers who will influence our future??
Bill
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
If i may contribute to this exchange i think the discussion is important Bill. The Law is already in place , however everyone seems to be having their own opinion on the Pro's and Cons of the New law which is counterproductive in the long run for the sector.Dont forget there are vested interests and sideshows in this whole Law issue, as practitioners it is important that we are all informed on the benefits (or good tidings) that the new new law brings and the challenges it might bring to the sector in the long run.In short as others are submitting their petitions let the debate continue, we were challenged at the Hilton Forum to embrace Research and the kind of information being exchanged on this forum is of utmost importance to all members.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:55 PM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill,
I have no game plan, I am an Academician and so find that I am able to look at this issues from each stakeholders perspective relatively objectively - and yes my effort was 'duly' commissioned by the KICTANet National Cordinator - though not digitally signed :-(.
This 10day exercise is not intended in anywway to undermine any other 'fact-finding' exercise and I believe the Ministry (of Info) does have the resources to multi-task and receive ideas from face-2-face workshops, online workshops, et al.
With regard to timeliness - last I heard was that Wako (AG) and/or Parliament can only begin to debate the suggested recommendations/proposals in April 2009 under a new Bill. So my take is that we have enough time for KICTAnet, ISACA and/or any other Stakeholder to submit their ideas.
Why go into the other Sections -IT, Telco, Postal, etc?. Again, my brief was to do total review of ALL sections - avoid being trapped in the over-hyped Media vs Govt debate because all the other sections are important too and could stand to benefit from a review.
I attach the Program Outline which I posted on Day 1 and looks like you missed it (hence your suspicions?). Nevertheless, If members wish that we rest the discussion, I will close the discussion and move out of the Chair accordingly.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: otieno.barrack@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail....
-- Barrack O. Otieno ISSEN CONSULTING Tel: +254721325277 +254726544442 +254733206359 www.issenconsult.com http://projectdiscovery.or.ke To give up the task of reforming society is to give up ones responsibility as a free man. Alan Paton, South Africa
Thanx Barrack, I had forgetten, we shall tally the 'No' and 'Abstain' votes as well -as long as they are emailed. walu. --- On Mon, 1/19/09, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 6 of 10-KCA 2008-Tuendelee ama Tusiendelee?(Paused) To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Monday, January 19, 2009, 1:18 PM Walu, it appears there is fatigue since the discussion has been conducted in multiple forums throughout last week. Tusiendelee
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 12:01 PM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill, Nyaki et al,
You got me been thinking...we have NOT been asking Listers on what THEY want discussed. No wonder participation/contributions have been declining over the years...
I just thought we should do a reality check and ask - should we discuss the Kenya Communications Act 2008 in totality or we just wrap up what has been said so far?
We are over 300 Listers and I only need at least (10%) that is 30 'Ayes or Yes' votes between now and end of tomorrow (Tue 20th Jan 2009) in order to continue.
eMail in your vote to the LIST (transparency), starting now and I will just do the tallying - i will avoid Form16A ;-).
walu. Let the people decide.
--- On Sun, 1/18/09, Catherine Adeya <elizaslider@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Catherine Adeya <elizaslider@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10-KCA 2008, IT Section - the Bad + Recommendations To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Sunday, January 18, 2009, 1:16 AM I do agree with the authors (I believe from an IDRC publication) who wrote ".....the link between policy research and policy-making is non-linear. Researchers must be flexible and agile in their timing and approaches if they are to influence economic policies. They should be willing and able to re-assess the situation at any point in time, and to re-visit their course of action or strategy".
Failing to plan is planning to fail. Research is not for research sake; research should and can inform policy. Many research centres were created in response to the need to develop policies that are home-grown, given the context of the failures of imported policies. Many policymakers run back to the very researchers who they would listened to in the first place to ensure they work in partnership; however researchers must work in a timely manner. Essentially, Walu, is on the right track.
Best,
Nyaki
________________________________ From: Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> To: elizaslider@yahoo.com Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 11:23:42 AM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10-KCA 2008, IT Section - the Bad + Recommendations
OK, I am convinced. This discussion is to do with research and I commend that. The only catch I can foresee is captured very well by Physicist Dr. Angeyo Kalambuka...quoting him verbatim,
[However, normally, academics look backward to find lessons; policymakers look ahead and often must improvise. Academics can wait until all the facts are in; policymakers cannot. The time horizon of academics may be years; the horizon of policymakers, weeks, days, even hours.]
Source -
This is the key difference between David Makali
and co.
(who are making things happen and shaping the future) and 'us' who are waiting to derive research from the action Media policy makers take. That is why they are a step ahead of us. Walu is our Academician. Where are our policy makers who will influence our future??
Bill
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
If i may contribute to this exchange i think the discussion is important Bill. The Law is already in place , however everyone seems to be having their own opinion on the Pro's and Cons of
which is counterproductive in the long run for the sector.Dont forget there are vested interests and sideshows in this whole Law issue, as practitioners it is important that we are all informed on the benefits (or good tidings) that the new new law brings and the challenges it might bring to the sector in the long run.In short as others are submitting their petitions let the debate continue, we were challenged at the Hilton Forum to embrace Research and the kind of information being exchanged on this forum is of utmost importance to all members.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:55 PM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill,
I have no game plan, I am an Academician and so find that I am able to look at this issues from each stakeholders
relatively objectively - and yes my effort was 'duly' commissioned by the KICTANet National Cordinator - though not digitally signed :-(.
This 10day exercise is not intended in anywway to undermine any other 'fact-finding' exercise and I believe the Ministry (of Info) does have the resources to multi-task and receive ideas from face-2-face workshops, online workshops, et al.
With regard to timeliness - last I heard was that Wako (AG) and/or Parliament can only begin to debate the suggested recommendations/proposals in April 2009 under a new Bill. So my take is that we have enough time for KICTAnet, ISACA and/or any other Stakeholder to submit their ideas.
Why go into the other Sections -IT, Telco, Postal, etc?. Again, my brief was to do total review of ALL sections - avoid being trapped in the over-hyped Media vs Govt debate because all
http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/-/440808/513790/-/428722/-/index.html the New law perspective the other
sections are important too and could stand to benefit from a review.
I attach the Program Outline which I posted on Day 1 and looks like you missed it (hence your suspicions?). Nevertheless, If members wish that we rest the discussion, I will close the discussion and move out of the Chair accordingly.
kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: otieno.barrack@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail....
-- Barrack O. Otieno ISSEN CONSULTING Tel: +254721325277 +254726544442 +254733206359 www.issenconsult.com http://projectdiscovery.or.ke To give up the task of reforming society is to give up ones responsibility as a free man. Alan Paton, South Africa
Methinks we should ask what the people want and use it as a stepping stone. So is my vote number one?
Yes -----Original Message----- From: kictanet-bounces+pamela=cardiacimplants.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+pamela=cardiacimplants.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of John Walubengo Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 12:01 PM To: pamela@cardiacimplants.com Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: [kictanet] Day 6 of 10-KCA 2008-Tuendelee ama Tusiendelee?(Paused) Bill, Nyaki et al, You got me been thinking...we have NOT been asking Listers on what THEY want discussed. No wonder participation/contributions have been declining over the years... I just thought we should do a reality check and ask - should we discuss the Kenya Communications Act 2008 in totality or we just wrap up what has been said so far? We are over 300 Listers and I only need at least (10%) that is 30 'Ayes or Yes' votes between now and end of tomorrow (Tue 20th Jan 2009) in order to continue. eMail in your vote to the LIST (transparency), starting now and I will just do the tallying - i will avoid Form16A ;-). walu. Let the people decide. --- On Sun, 1/18/09, Catherine Adeya <elizaslider@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Catherine Adeya <elizaslider@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10-KCA 2008, IT Section - the Bad + Recommendations To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Sunday, January 18, 2009, 1:16 AM I do agree with the authors (I believe from an IDRC publication) who wrote ".....the link between policy research and policy-making is non-linear. Researchers must be flexible and agile in their timing and approaches if they are to influence economic policies. They should be willing and able to re-assess the situation at any point in time, and to re-visit their course of action or strategy".
Failing to plan is planning to fail. Research is not for research sake; research should and can inform policy. Many research centres were created in response to the need to develop policies that are home-grown, given the context of the failures of imported policies. Many policymakers run back to the very researchers who they would listened to in the first place to ensure they work in partnership; however researchers must work in a timely manner. Essentially, Walu, is on the right track.
Best,
Nyaki
________________________________ From: Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> To: elizaslider@yahoo.com Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 11:23:42 AM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10-KCA 2008, IT Section - the Bad + Recommendations
OK, I am convinced. This discussion is to do with research and I commend that. The only catch I can foresee is captured very well by Physicist Dr. Angeyo Kalambuka...quoting him verbatim,
[However, normally, academics look backward to find lessons; policymakers look ahead and often must improvise. Academics can wait until all the facts are in; policymakers cannot. The time horizon of academics may be years; the horizon of policymakers, weeks, days, even hours.]
Source - http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/-/440808/513790/-/428722/-/index.html
This is the key difference between David Makali and co. (who are making things happen and shaping the future) and 'us' who are waiting to derive research from the action Media policy makers take. That is why they are a step ahead of us. Walu is our Academician. Where are our policy makers who will influence our future??
Bill
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
If i may contribute to this exchange i think the discussion is important Bill. The Law is already in place , however everyone seems to be having their own opinion on the Pro's and Cons of the New law which is counterproductive in the long run for the sector.Dont forget there are vested interests and sideshows in this whole Law issue, as practitioners it is important that we are all informed on the benefits (or good tidings) that the new new law brings and the challenges it might bring to the sector in the long run.In short as others are submitting their petitions let the debate continue, we were challenged at the Hilton Forum to embrace Research and the kind of information being exchanged on this forum is of utmost importance to all members.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:55 PM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill,
I have no game plan, I am an Academician and so find that I am able to look at this issues from each stakeholders perspective relatively objectively - and yes my effort was 'duly' commissioned by the KICTANet National Cordinator - though not digitally signed :-(.
This 10day exercise is not intended in anywway to undermine any other 'fact-finding' exercise and I believe the Ministry (of Info) does have the resources to multi-task and receive ideas from face-2-face workshops, online workshops, et al.
With regard to timeliness - last I heard was that Wako (AG) and/or Parliament can only begin to debate the suggested recommendations/proposals in April 2009 under a new Bill. So my take is that we have enough time for KICTAnet, ISACA and/or any other Stakeholder to submit their ideas.
Why go into the other Sections -IT, Telco, Postal, etc?. Again, my brief was to do total review of ALL sections - avoid being trapped in the over-hyped Media vs Govt debate because all the other sections are important too and could stand to benefit from a review.
I attach the Program Outline which I posted on Day 1 and looks like you missed it (hence your suspicions?). Nevertheless, If members wish that we rest the discussion, I will close the discussion and move out of the Chair accordingly.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: pamela@cardiacimplants.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/pamela%40cardiacimplant s.com
no -----Original Message----- From: kictanet-bounces+fes=iconnect.co.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+fes=iconnect.co.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Pamela Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 2:59 PM To: fes@iconnect.co.ke Cc: 'KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions' Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 6 of 10-KCA 2008-Tuendelee ama Tusiendelee?(Paused) Yes -----Original Message----- From: kictanet-bounces+pamela=cardiacimplants.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+pamela=cardiacimplants.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of John Walubengo Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 12:01 PM To: pamela@cardiacimplants.com Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: [kictanet] Day 6 of 10-KCA 2008-Tuendelee ama Tusiendelee?(Paused) Bill, Nyaki et al, You got me been thinking...we have NOT been asking Listers on what THEY want discussed. No wonder participation/contributions have been declining over the years... I just thought we should do a reality check and ask - should we discuss the Kenya Communications Act 2008 in totality or we just wrap up what has been said so far? We are over 300 Listers and I only need at least (10%) that is 30 'Ayes or Yes' votes between now and end of tomorrow (Tue 20th Jan 2009) in order to continue. eMail in your vote to the LIST (transparency), starting now and I will just do the tallying - i will avoid Form16A ;-). walu. Let the people decide. --- On Sun, 1/18/09, Catherine Adeya <elizaslider@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Catherine Adeya <elizaslider@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10-KCA 2008, IT Section - the Bad + Recommendations To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Sunday, January 18, 2009, 1:16 AM I do agree with the authors (I believe from an IDRC publication) who wrote ".....the link between policy research and policy-making is non-linear. Researchers must be flexible and agile in their timing and approaches if they are to influence economic policies. They should be willing and able to re-assess the situation at any point in time, and to re-visit their course of action or strategy".
Failing to plan is planning to fail. Research is not for research sake; research should and can inform policy. Many research centres were created in response to the need to develop policies that are home-grown, given the context of the failures of imported policies. Many policymakers run back to the very researchers who they would listened to in the first place to ensure they work in partnership; however researchers must work in a timely manner. Essentially, Walu, is on the right track.
Best,
Nyaki
________________________________ From: Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> To: elizaslider@yahoo.com Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 11:23:42 AM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10-KCA 2008, IT Section - the Bad + Recommendations
OK, I am convinced. This discussion is to do with research and I commend that. The only catch I can foresee is captured very well by Physicist Dr. Angeyo Kalambuka...quoting him verbatim,
[However, normally, academics look backward to find lessons; policymakers look ahead and often must improvise. Academics can wait until all the facts are in; policymakers cannot. The time horizon of academics may be years; the horizon of policymakers, weeks, days, even hours.]
Source - http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/-/440808/513790/-/428722/-/index.html
This is the key difference between David Makali and co. (who are making things happen and shaping the future) and 'us' who are waiting to derive research from the action Media policy makers take. That is why they are a step ahead of us. Walu is our Academician. Where are our policy makers who will influence our future??
Bill
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
If i may contribute to this exchange i think the discussion is important Bill. The Law is already in place , however everyone seems to be having their own opinion on the Pro's and Cons of the New law which is counterproductive in the long run for the sector.Dont forget there are vested interests and sideshows in this whole Law issue, as practitioners it is important that we are all informed on the benefits (or good tidings) that the new new law brings and the challenges it might bring to the sector in the long run.In short as others are submitting their petitions let the debate continue, we were challenged at the Hilton Forum to embrace Research and the kind of information being exchanged on this forum is of utmost importance to all members.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:55 PM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill,
I have no game plan, I am an Academician and so find that I am able to look at this issues from each stakeholders perspective relatively objectively - and yes my effort was 'duly' commissioned by the KICTANet National Cordinator - though not digitally signed :-(.
This 10day exercise is not intended in anywway to undermine any other 'fact-finding' exercise and I believe the Ministry (of Info) does have the resources to multi-task and receive ideas from face-2-face workshops, online workshops, et al.
With regard to timeliness - last I heard was that Wako (AG) and/or Parliament can only begin to debate the suggested recommendations/proposals in April 2009 under a new Bill. So my take is that we have enough time for KICTAnet, ISACA and/or any other Stakeholder to submit their ideas.
Why go into the other Sections -IT, Telco, Postal, etc?. Again, my brief was to do total review of ALL sections - avoid being trapped in the over-hyped Media vs Govt debate because all the other sections are important too and could stand to benefit from a review.
I attach the Program Outline which I posted on Day 1 and looks like you missed it (hence your suspicions?). Nevertheless, If members wish that we rest the discussion, I will close the discussion and move out of the Chair accordingly.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: pamela@cardiacimplants.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/pamela%40cardiacimplant s.com _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: fes@iconnect.co.ke Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/fes%40iconnect.co.ke
No!! On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Foundation Piling Limited < fes@iconnect.co.ke> wrote:
no
-----Original Message----- From: kictanet-bounces+fes=iconnect.co.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+fes <kictanet-bounces%2Bfes>=iconnect.co.ke@ lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Pamela Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 2:59 PM To: fes@iconnect.co.ke Cc: 'KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions' Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 6 of 10-KCA 2008-Tuendelee ama Tusiendelee?(Paused)
Yes
-----Original Message----- From: kictanet-bounces+pamela=cardiacimplants.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+pamela <kictanet-bounces%2Bpamela>= cardiacimplants.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of John Walubengo Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 12:01 PM To: pamela@cardiacimplants.com Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: [kictanet] Day 6 of 10-KCA 2008-Tuendelee ama Tusiendelee?(Paused)
Bill, Nyaki et al,
You got me been thinking...we have NOT been asking Listers on what THEY want discussed. No wonder participation/contributions have been declining over the years...
I just thought we should do a reality check and ask - should we discuss the Kenya Communications Act 2008 in totality or we just wrap up what has been said so far?
We are over 300 Listers and I only need at least (10%) that is 30 'Ayes or Yes' votes between now and end of tomorrow (Tue 20th Jan 2009) in order to continue.
eMail in your vote to the LIST (transparency), starting now and I will just do the tallying - i will avoid Form16A ;-).
walu. Let the people decide.
--- On Sun, 1/18/09, Catherine Adeya <elizaslider@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Catherine Adeya <elizaslider@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10-KCA 2008, IT Section - the Bad + Recommendations To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Sunday, January 18, 2009, 1:16 AM I do agree with the authors (I believe from an IDRC publication) who wrote ".....the link between policy research and policy-making is non-linear. Researchers must be flexible and agile in their timing and approaches if they are to influence economic policies. They should be willing and able to re-assess the situation at any point in time, and to re-visit their course of action or strategy".
Failing to plan is planning to fail. Research is not for research sake; research should and can inform policy. Many research centres were created in response to the need to develop policies that are home-grown, given the context of the failures of imported policies. Many policymakers run back to the very researchers who they would listened to in the first place to ensure they work in partnership; however researchers must work in a timely manner. Essentially, Walu, is on the right track.
Best,
Nyaki
________________________________ From: Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> To: elizaslider@yahoo.com Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 11:23:42 AM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10-KCA 2008, IT Section - the Bad + Recommendations
OK, I am convinced. This discussion is to do with research and I commend that. The only catch I can foresee is captured very well by Physicist Dr. Angeyo Kalambuka...quoting him verbatim,
[However, normally, academics look backward to find lessons; policymakers look ahead and often must improvise. Academics can wait until all the facts are in; policymakers cannot. The time horizon of academics may be years; the horizon of policymakers, weeks, days, even hours.]
Source -
http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/-/440808/513790/-/428722/-/index.html
This is the key difference between David Makali and co. (who are making things happen and shaping the future) and 'us' who are waiting to derive research from the action Media policy makers take. That is why they are a step ahead of us. Walu is our Academician. Where are our policy makers who will influence our future??
Bill
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
If i may contribute to this exchange i think the discussion is important Bill. The Law is already in place , however everyone seems to be having their own opinion on the Pro's and Cons of the New law which is counterproductive in the long run for the sector.Dont forget there are vested interests and sideshows in this whole Law issue, as practitioners it is important that we are all informed on the benefits (or good tidings) that the new new law brings and the challenges it might bring to the sector in the long run.In short as others are submitting their petitions let the debate continue, we were challenged at the Hilton Forum to embrace Research and the kind of information being exchanged on this forum is of utmost importance to all members.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:55 PM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill,
I have no game plan, I am an Academician and so find that I am able to look at this issues from each stakeholders perspective relatively objectively - and yes my effort was 'duly' commissioned by the KICTANet National Cordinator - though not digitally signed :-(.
This 10day exercise is not intended in anywway to undermine any other 'fact-finding' exercise and I believe the Ministry (of Info) does have the resources to multi-task and receive ideas from face-2-face workshops, online workshops, et al.
With regard to timeliness - last I heard was that Wako (AG) and/or Parliament can only begin to debate the suggested recommendations/proposals in April 2009 under a new Bill. So my take is that we have enough time for KICTAnet, ISACA and/or any other Stakeholder to submit their ideas.
Why go into the other Sections -IT, Telco, Postal, etc?. Again, my brief was to do total review of ALL sections - avoid being trapped in the over-hyped Media vs Govt debate because all the other sections are important too and could stand to benefit from a review.
I attach the Program Outline which I posted on Day 1 and looks like you missed it (hence your suspicions?). Nevertheless, If members wish that we rest the discussion, I will close the discussion and move out of the Chair accordingly.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: pamela@cardiacimplants.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/pamela%40cardiacimplant s.com<http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/pamela%40cardiacimplants.com>
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: fes@iconnect.co.ke Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/fes%40iconnect.co.ke
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: billkagai@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/billkagai%40gmail.com
Yes Sent from my BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: "Pamela" <pamela@cardiacimplants.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:59:02 To: <n_macharia@yahoo.co.uk> Cc: 'KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions'<kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 6 of 10-KCA 2008-Tuendelee ama Tusiendelee?(Paused) Yes -----Original Message----- From: kictanet-bounces+pamela=cardiacimplants.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+pamela=cardiacimplants.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of John Walubengo Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 12:01 PM To: pamela@cardiacimplants.com Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: [kictanet] Day 6 of 10-KCA 2008-Tuendelee ama Tusiendelee?(Paused) Bill, Nyaki et al, You got me been thinking...we have NOT been asking Listers on what THEY want discussed. No wonder participation/contributions have been declining over the years... I just thought we should do a reality check and ask - should we discuss the Kenya Communications Act 2008 in totality or we just wrap up what has been said so far? We are over 300 Listers and I only need at least (10%) that is 30 'Ayes or Yes' votes between now and end of tomorrow (Tue 20th Jan 2009) in order to continue. eMail in your vote to the LIST (transparency), starting now and I will just do the tallying - i will avoid Form16A ;-). walu. Let the people decide. --- On Sun, 1/18/09, Catherine Adeya <elizaslider@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Catherine Adeya <elizaslider@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10-KCA 2008, IT Section - the Bad + Recommendations To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Sunday, January 18, 2009, 1:16 AM I do agree with the authors (I believe from an IDRC publication) who wrote ".....the link between policy research and policy-making is non-linear. Researchers must be flexible and agile in their timing and approaches if they are to influence economic policies. They should be willing and able to re-assess the situation at any point in time, and to re-visit their course of action or strategy".
Failing to plan is planning to fail. Research is not for research sake; research should and can inform policy. Many research centres were created in response to the need to develop policies that are home-grown, given the context of the failures of imported policies. Many policymakers run back to the very researchers who they would listened to in the first place to ensure they work in partnership; however researchers must work in a timely manner. Essentially, Walu, is on the right track.
Best,
Nyaki
________________________________ From: Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> To: elizaslider@yahoo.com Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 11:23:42 AM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10-KCA 2008, IT Section - the Bad + Recommendations
OK, I am convinced. This discussion is to do with research and I commend that. The only catch I can foresee is captured very well by Physicist Dr. Angeyo Kalambuka...quoting him verbatim,
[However, normally, academics look backward to find lessons; policymakers look ahead and often must improvise. Academics can wait until all the facts are in; policymakers cannot. The time horizon of academics may be years; the horizon of policymakers, weeks, days, even hours.]
Source - http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/-/440808/513790/-/428722/-/index.html
This is the key difference between David Makali and co. (who are making things happen and shaping the future) and 'us' who are waiting to derive research from the action Media policy makers take. That is why they are a step ahead of us. Walu is our Academician. Where are our policy makers who will influence our future??
Bill
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
If i may contribute to this exchange i think the discussion is important Bill. The Law is already in place , however everyone seems to be having their own opinion on the Pro's and Cons of the New law which is counterproductive in the long run for the sector.Dont forget there are vested interests and sideshows in this whole Law issue, as practitioners it is important that we are all informed on the benefits (or good tidings) that the new new law brings and the challenges it might bring to the sector in the long run.In short as others are submitting their petitions let the debate continue, we were challenged at the Hilton Forum to embrace Research and the kind of information being exchanged on this forum is of utmost importance to all members.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:55 PM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill,
I have no game plan, I am an Academician and so find that I am able to look at this issues from each stakeholders perspective relatively objectively - and yes my effort was 'duly' commissioned by the KICTANet National Cordinator - though not digitally signed :-(.
This 10day exercise is not intended in anywway to undermine any other 'fact-finding' exercise and I believe the Ministry (of Info) does have the resources to multi-task and receive ideas from face-2-face workshops, online workshops, et al.
With regard to timeliness - last I heard was that Wako (AG) and/or Parliament can only begin to debate the suggested recommendations/proposals in April 2009 under a new Bill. So my take is that we have enough time for KICTAnet, ISACA and/or any other Stakeholder to submit their ideas.
Why go into the other Sections -IT, Telco, Postal, etc?. Again, my brief was to do total review of ALL sections - avoid being trapped in the over-hyped Media vs Govt debate because all the other sections are important too and could stand to benefit from a review.
I attach the Program Outline which I posted on Day 1 and looks like you missed it (hence your suspicions?). Nevertheless, If members wish that we rest the discussion, I will close the discussion and move out of the Chair accordingly.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: pamela@cardiacimplants.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/pamela%40cardiacimplant s.com _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: n_macharia@yahoo.co.uk Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/n_macharia%40yahoo.co.u... -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
By the way Listers, Mob apologies. Last discussion topic on the Kenya Amendment Act got into a voting stage to decide whether we go beyond media issues (which we had covered) by getting into IT, Telco and Postal Issues. Here is how members voted or (did not) Abstained: 1 YES: we go into IT, Telco, Postal issues:2 NO: we stop and compile media discussion report: 3 Kept Quiet(dont know?): 360. So that is how the discussion died - and so will compile the media discussion and share within 1week from today (not very efficient but its because I got quite discouraged by the overwhelming number of the "Quiet" viza vis the "Voters"). walu. --- On Mon, 1/19/09, n_macharia@yahoo.co.uk <n_macharia@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
From: n_macharia@yahoo.co.uk <n_macharia@yahoo.co.uk> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 6 of 10-KCA 2008-Tuendelee amaTusiendelee?(Paused) To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: "'KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions'" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Monday, January 19, 2009, 11:47 PM Yes Sent from my BlackBerry®
-----Original Message----- From: "Pamela" <pamela@cardiacimplants.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:59:02 To: <n_macharia@yahoo.co.uk> Cc: 'KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions'<kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 6 of 10-KCA 2008-Tuendelee ama Tusiendelee?(Paused)
Yes
-----Original Message----- From: kictanet-bounces+pamela=cardiacimplants.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+pamela=cardiacimplants.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of John Walubengo Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 12:01 PM To: pamela@cardiacimplants.com Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: [kictanet] Day 6 of 10-KCA 2008-Tuendelee ama Tusiendelee?(Paused)
Bill, Nyaki et al,
You got me been thinking...we have NOT been asking Listers on what THEY want discussed. No wonder participation/contributions have been declining over the years...
I just thought we should do a reality check and ask - should we discuss the Kenya Communications Act 2008 in totality or we just wrap up what has been said so far?
We are over 300 Listers and I only need at least (10%) that is 30 'Ayes or Yes' votes between now and end of tomorrow (Tue 20th Jan 2009) in order to continue.
eMail in your vote to the LIST (transparency), starting now and I will just do the tallying - i will avoid Form16A ;-).
walu. Let the people decide.
--- On Sun, 1/18/09, Catherine Adeya <elizaslider@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Catherine Adeya <elizaslider@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10-KCA 2008, IT Section - the Bad + Recommendations To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Sunday, January 18, 2009, 1:16 AM I do agree with the authors (I believe from an IDRC publication) who wrote ".....the link between policy research and policy-making is non-linear. Researchers must be flexible and agile in their timing and approaches if they are to influence economic policies. They should be willing and able to re-assess the situation at any point in time, and to re-visit their course of action or strategy".
Failing to plan is planning to fail. Research is not for research sake; research should and can inform policy. Many research centres were created in response to the need to develop policies that are home-grown, given the context of the failures of imported policies. Many policymakers run back to the very researchers who they would listened to in the first place to ensure they work in partnership; however researchers must work in a timely manner. Essentially, Walu, is on the right track.
Best,
Nyaki
________________________________ From: Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> To: elizaslider@yahoo.com Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 11:23:42 AM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10-KCA 2008, IT Section - the Bad + Recommendations
OK, I am convinced. This discussion is to do with research and I commend that. The only catch I can foresee is captured very well by Physicist Dr. Angeyo Kalambuka...quoting him verbatim,
[However, normally, academics look backward to find lessons; policymakers look ahead and often must improvise. Academics can wait until all the facts are in; policymakers cannot. The time horizon of academics may be years; the horizon of policymakers, weeks, days, even hours.]
Source -
http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/-/440808/513790/-/428722/-/index.html
This is the key difference between David Makali and
(who are making things happen and shaping the future) and 'us' who are waiting to derive research from the action Media policy makers take. That is why they are a step ahead of us. Walu is our Academician. Where are our policy makers who will influence our future??
Bill
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
If i may contribute to this exchange i think the discussion is important Bill. The Law is already in place , however everyone seems to be having their own opinion on the Pro's and Cons of the New law which is counterproductive in the long run for the sector.Dont forget there are vested interests and sideshows in this whole Law issue, as practitioners it is important that we are all informed on the benefits (or good tidings) that the new new law brings and the challenges it might bring to the sector in the long run.In short as others are submitting their petitions let the debate continue, we were challenged at the Hilton Forum to embrace Research and
kind of information being exchanged on this forum is of utmost importance to all members.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:55 PM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill,
I have no game plan, I am an Academician and so find
am able to look at this issues from each stakeholders perspective relatively objectively - and yes my effort was 'duly' commissioned by the KICTANet National Cordinator - though not digitally signed :-(.
This 10day exercise is not intended in anywway to undermine any other 'fact-finding' exercise and I believe
co. the that I the
Ministry (of Info) does have the resources to multi-task and receive ideas from face-2-face workshops, online workshops, et al.
With regard to timeliness - last I heard was that Wako (AG) and/or Parliament can only begin to debate the suggested recommendations/proposals in April 2009 under a new Bill. So my take is that we have enough time for KICTAnet, ISACA and/or any other Stakeholder to submit their ideas.
Why go into the other Sections -IT, Telco, Postal, etc?. Again, my brief was to do total review of ALL sections - avoid being trapped in the over-hyped Media vs Govt debate because all the other sections are important too and could stand to benefit from a review.
I attach the Program Outline which I posted on Day 1 and looks like you missed it (hence your suspicions?). Nevertheless, If members wish that we rest the discussion, I will close the discussion and move out of the Chair accordingly.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: pamela@cardiacimplants.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/pamela%40cardiacimplant s.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: n_macharia@yahoo.co.uk Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/n_macharia%40yahoo.co.u...
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Dear Walu, There was a whole day meeting on 9th January 2009 at KICC dubbed 'Stakeholders Forum on the Kenya Communication Amendment Act 2008'. Ezekiel Mutua, Director of Information and Public Communication was the convenor and in toe there were many speakers inculing the Minister for I&C; Chair of Parliamentary Committee on Infrastructure, Energy, Information etc.; ex MP Koigi; representatives of media owners; clergy; journalists; civil society; etc. etc. I liked the presentation by Kenya ICT Federation. They numerated issues they had raised when the Bill was in its 2nd and 3rd reading before the Parliamentary Committee but none of their inputs were added to the Act. Takin a cue from the foregoing and the recent activities (yesterday there was an KEPSA ICT Sector Board along with the ICT Sector stakeholders meeting this afternoon at 3.30pm with the Kenya ICT Board) where one of the agendas was Kenya Communication Amendment Act, 2008 – status! Smell the kahawa bwana. Kind regards, David On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 6:16 PM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
By the way Listers,
Mob apologies. Last discussion topic on the Kenya Amendment Act got into a voting stage to decide whether we go beyond media issues (which we had covered) by getting into IT, Telco and Postal Issues. Here is how members voted or (did not)
Abstained: 1 YES: we go into IT, Telco, Postal issues:2 NO: we stop and compile media discussion report: 3 Kept Quiet(dont know?): 360.
So that is how the discussion died - and so will compile the media discussion and share within 1week from today (not very efficient but its because I got quite discouraged by the overwhelming number of the "Quiet" viza vis the "Voters").
walu.
--- On Mon, 1/19/09, n_macharia@yahoo.co.uk <n_macharia@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
From: n_macharia@yahoo.co.uk <n_macharia@yahoo.co.uk> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 6 of 10-KCA 2008-Tuendelee amaTusiendelee?(Paused) To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: "'KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions'" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Monday, January 19, 2009, 11:47 PM Yes Sent from my BlackBerry®
-----Original Message----- From: "Pamela" <pamela@cardiacimplants.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:59:02 To: <n_macharia@yahoo.co.uk> Cc: 'KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions'<kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 6 of 10-KCA 2008-Tuendelee ama Tusiendelee?(Paused)
Yes
-----Original Message----- From: kictanet-bounces+pamela=cardiacimplants.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+pamela <kictanet-bounces%2Bpamela>= cardiacimplants.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of John Walubengo Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 12:01 PM To: pamela@cardiacimplants.com Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: [kictanet] Day 6 of 10-KCA 2008-Tuendelee ama Tusiendelee?(Paused)
Bill, Nyaki et al,
You got me been thinking...we have NOT been asking Listers on what THEY want discussed. No wonder participation/contributions have been declining over the years...
I just thought we should do a reality check and ask - should we discuss the Kenya Communications Act 2008 in totality or we just wrap up what has been said so far?
We are over 300 Listers and I only need at least (10%) that is 30 'Ayes or Yes' votes between now and end of tomorrow (Tue 20th Jan 2009) in order to continue.
eMail in your vote to the LIST (transparency), starting now and I will just do the tallying - i will avoid Form16A ;-).
walu. Let the people decide.
--- On Sun, 1/18/09, Catherine Adeya <elizaslider@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Catherine Adeya <elizaslider@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10-KCA 2008, IT Section - the Bad + Recommendations To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Sunday, January 18, 2009, 1:16 AM I do agree with the authors (I believe from an IDRC publication) who wrote ".....the link between policy research and policy-making is non-linear. Researchers must be flexible and agile in their timing and approaches if they are to influence economic policies. They should be willing and able to re-assess the situation at any point in time, and to re-visit their course of action or strategy".
Failing to plan is planning to fail. Research is not for research sake; research should and can inform policy. Many research centres were created in response to the need to develop policies that are home-grown, given the context of the failures of imported policies. Many policymakers run back to the very researchers who they would listened to in the first place to ensure they work in partnership; however researchers must work in a timely manner. Essentially, Walu, is on the right track.
Best,
Nyaki
________________________________ From: Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> To: elizaslider@yahoo.com Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 11:23:42 AM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10-KCA 2008, IT Section - the Bad + Recommendations
OK, I am convinced. This discussion is to do with research and I commend that. The only catch I can foresee is captured very well by Physicist Dr. Angeyo Kalambuka...quoting him verbatim,
[However, normally, academics look backward to find lessons; policymakers look ahead and often must improvise. Academics can wait until all the facts are in; policymakers cannot. The time horizon of academics may be years; the horizon of policymakers, weeks, days, even hours.]
Source -
http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/-/440808/513790/-/428722/-/index.html
This is the key difference between David Makali and
(who are making things happen and shaping the future) and 'us' who are waiting to derive research from the action Media policy makers take. That is why they are a step ahead of us. Walu is our Academician. Where are our policy makers who will influence our future??
Bill
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
If i may contribute to this exchange i think the discussion is important Bill. The Law is already in place , however everyone seems to be having their own opinion on the Pro's and Cons of the New law which is counterproductive in the long run for the sector.Dont forget there are vested interests and sideshows in this whole Law issue, as practitioners it is important that we are all informed on the benefits (or good tidings) that the new new law brings and the challenges it might bring to the sector in the long run.In short as others are submitting their petitions let the debate continue, we were challenged at the Hilton Forum to embrace Research and
kind of information being exchanged on this forum is of utmost importance to all members.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:55 PM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill,
I have no game plan, I am an Academician and so find
am able to look at this issues from each stakeholders perspective relatively objectively - and yes my effort was 'duly' commissioned by the KICTANet National Cordinator - though not digitally signed :-(.
This 10day exercise is not intended in anywway to undermine any other 'fact-finding' exercise and I believe
co. the that I the
Ministry (of Info) does have the resources to multi-task and receive ideas from face-2-face workshops, online workshops, et al.
With regard to timeliness - last I heard was that Wako (AG) and/or Parliament can only begin to debate the suggested recommendations/proposals in April 2009 under a new Bill. So my take is that we have enough time for KICTAnet, ISACA and/or any other Stakeholder to submit their ideas.
Why go into the other Sections -IT, Telco, Postal, etc?. Again, my brief was to do total review of ALL sections - avoid being trapped in the over-hyped Media vs Govt debate because all the other sections are important too and could stand to benefit from a review.
I attach the Program Outline which I posted on Day 1 and looks like you missed it (hence your suspicions?). Nevertheless, If members wish that we rest the discussion, I will close the discussion and move out of the Chair accordingly.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: pamela@cardiacimplants.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/pamela%40cardiacimplant
s.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: n_macharia@yahoo.co.uk Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/n_macharia%40yahoo.co.u...
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: otwomad@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otwomad%40gmail.com
David Thanks for this. As previously mentioned to listers I am trying to gauge the value of donors engaging in the ICT sector in Kenya. I appreciate I am a late entrant to the list and wonder whether there have been any who have trod this path before. Is the donor community sufficiently engaged in the ICT field in Kenya? Should they be? Personally I think there is a lot for Kenya to benefit from some form of engagement (not only funds transfer). I would have liked to attend attend the stakeholders forum on the Kenya communications act that David mentions, but I am not sufficiently plugged in. Victor ps: Apologies for not participating in the vote Walu but didn't see your discussion topic. Seem to get some and miss some...problems with the list admin? ________________________________ From: kictanet-bounces+v-gathara=dfid.gov.uk@lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+v-gathara=dfid.gov.uk@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of David Otwoma Sent: 04 March 2009 08:35 To: Victor Gathara Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 6 of 10-KCA 2008-Tuendelee amaTusiendelee?(VoteResults) Dear Walu, There was a whole day meeting on 9th January 2009 at KICC dubbed 'Stakeholders Forum on the Kenya Communication Amendment Act 2008'. Ezekiel Mutua, Director of Information and Public Communication was the convenor and in toe there were many speakers inculing the Minister for I&C; Chair of Parliamentary Committee on Infrastructure, Energy, Information etc.; ex MP Koigi; representatives of media owners; clergy; journalists; civil society; etc. etc. I liked the presentation by Kenya ICT Federation. They numerated issues they had raised when the Bill was in its 2nd and 3rd reading before the Parliamentary Committee but none of their inputs were added to the Act. Takin a cue from the foregoing and the recent activities (yesterday there was an KEPSA ICT Sector Board along with the ICT Sector stakeholders meeting this afternoon at 3.30pm with the Kenya ICT Board) where one of the agendas was Kenya Communication Amendment Act, 2008 - status! Smell the kahawa bwana. Kind regards, David On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 6:16 PM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote: By the way Listers, Mob apologies. Last discussion topic on the Kenya Amendment Act got into a voting stage to decide whether we go beyond media issues (which we had covered) by getting into IT, Telco and Postal Issues. Here is how members voted or (did not) Abstained: 1 YES: we go into IT, Telco, Postal issues:2 NO: we stop and compile media discussion report: 3 Kept Quiet(dont know?): 360. So that is how the discussion died - and so will compile the media discussion and share within 1week from today (not very efficient but its because I got quite discouraged by the overwhelming number of the "Quiet" viza vis the "Voters"). walu. --- On Mon, 1/19/09, n_macharia@yahoo.co.uk <n_macharia@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > From: n_macharia@yahoo.co.uk <n_macharia@yahoo.co.uk> > Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 6 of 10-KCA 2008-Tuendelee amaTusiendelee?(Paused) > To: jwalu@yahoo.com > Cc: "'KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions'" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> > Date: Monday, January 19, 2009, 11:47 PM > Yes > Sent from my BlackBerry(r) > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Pamela" <pamela@cardiacimplants.com> > > Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:59:02 > To: <n_macharia@yahoo.co.uk> > Cc: 'KICTAnet ICT Policy > Discussions'<kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> > Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 6 of 10-KCA 2008-Tuendelee ama > Tusiendelee?(Paused) > > > Yes > > -----Original Message----- > From: > kictanet-bounces+pamela=cardiacimplants.com <http://cardiacimplants.com/> @lists.kictanet.or.ke <http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/> > [mailto:kictanet-bounces+pamela <mailto:kictanet-bounces%2Bpamela> =cardiacimplants.com <http://cardiacimplants.com/> @lists.kictanet.or.ke <http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/> ] > On > Behalf Of John Walubengo > Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 12:01 PM > To: pamela@cardiacimplants.com > Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions > Subject: [kictanet] Day 6 of 10-KCA 2008-Tuendelee ama > Tusiendelee?(Paused) > > Bill, Nyaki et al, > > You got me been thinking...we have NOT been asking Listers > on what THEY want > discussed. No wonder participation/contributions have been > declining over > the years... > > I just thought we should do a reality check and ask - > should we discuss the > Kenya Communications Act 2008 in totality or we just wrap > up what has been > said so far? > > We are over 300 Listers and I only need at least (10%) that > is 30 'Ayes or > Yes' votes between now and end of tomorrow (Tue 20th > Jan 2009) in order to > continue. > > eMail in your vote to the LIST (transparency), starting now > and I will just > do the tallying - i will avoid Form16A ;-). > > walu. > Let the people decide. > > --- On Sun, 1/18/09, Catherine Adeya > <elizaslider@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > From: Catherine Adeya <elizaslider@yahoo.com> > > Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10-KCA 2008, IT > Section - the Bad + > Recommendations > > To: jwalu@yahoo.com > > Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" > <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> > > Date: Sunday, January 18, 2009, 1:16 AM > > I do agree with the authors (I believe from an IDRC > > publication) who wrote ".....the link between > policy > > research and policy-making is > > non-linear. Researchers must be flexible and agile in > their > > timing and > > approaches if they are to influence economic policies. > They > > should be > > willing and able to re-assess the situation at any > point in > > time, and > > to re-visit their course of action or strategy". > > > > Failing to plan is planning to fail. Research is not > for > > research sake; research should and can inform policy. > Many > > research centres were created in response to the need > to > > develop > > policies that are home-grown, given the context of the > > failures of > > imported policies. Many policymakers run back to the > very > > researchers who they would listened to in the first > place to > > ensure they work in partnership; however researchers > must > > work in a timely manner. Essentially, Walu, is on the > right > > track. > > > > Best, > > > > Nyaki > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> > > To: elizaslider@yahoo.com > > Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions > > <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> > > Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 11:23:42 AM > > Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10-KCA 2008, IT > Section - > > the Bad + Recommendations > > > > OK, I am convinced. This discussion is to do with > research > > and I commend that. > > The only catch I can foresee is captured very well by > > Physicist Dr. Angeyo Kalambuka...quoting him verbatim, > > > > [However, normally, academics look backward to find > > lessons; > > policymakers look ahead and often must improvise. > Academics > > can wait > > until all the facts are in; policymakers cannot. The > time > > horizon of > > academics may be years; the horizon of policymakers, > weeks, > > days, even > > hours.] > > > > Source - > > > http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/-/440808/513790/-/428722/-/index.ht ml > > > > This is the key difference between David Makali and > co. > > (who are making > > things happen and shaping the future) and 'us' > who > > are waiting to > > derive research from the action Media policy makers > take. > > That is why > > they are a step ahead of us. Walu is our Academician. > Where > > are our > > policy makers who will influence our future?? > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Barrack Otieno > > <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > If > > i may contribute to this exchange i think the > discussion is > > important > > Bill. The Law is already in place , however everyone > seems > > to be having > > their own opinion on the Pro's and Cons of the New > law > > which is > > counterproductive in the long run for the sector.Dont > > forget there are > > vested interests and sideshows in this whole Law > > issue, as practitioners it is important that we are > all > > informed on the > > benefits (or good tidings) that the new new law brings > and > > the > > challenges it might bring to the sector in the long > run.In > > short as > > others are submitting their petitions let the debate > > continue, we were > > challenged at the Hilton Forum to embrace Research and > the > > kind of > > information being exchanged on this forum is of utmost > > importance to > > all members. > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:55 PM, John Walubengo > > <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > I > > have no game plan, I am an Academician and so find > that I > > am able to > > look at this issues from each stakeholders perspective > > relatively > > objectively - and yes my effort was 'duly' > > commissioned by the > > KICTANet National Cordinator - though not digitally > signed > > :-(. > > > > This 10day exercise is not intended in anywway to > undermine > > any > > other 'fact-finding' exercise and I believe > the > > Ministry (of Info) does > > have the resources to multi-task and receive ideas > from > > face-2-face > > workshops, online workshops, et al. > > > > With regard to timeliness - last I heard was that Wako > (AG) > > and/or > > Parliament can only begin to debate the suggested > > recommendations/proposals in April 2009 under a new > Bill. > > So my take is > > that we have enough time for KICTAnet, ISACA and/or > any > > other > > Stakeholder to submit their ideas. > > > > Why go into the other Sections -IT, Telco, Postal, > etc?. > > Again, my > > brief was to do total review of ALL sections - avoid > being > > trapped in > > the over-hyped Media vs Govt debate because all the > other > > sections are > > important too and could stand to benefit from a > review. > > > > I attach the Program Outline which I posted on Day 1 > and > > looks like > > you missed it (hence your suspicions?). Nevertheless, > If > > members wish > > that we rest the discussion, I will close the > discussion > > and move out > > of the Chair accordingly. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > kictanet mailing list > > kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke > > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > > > This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com > > Unsubscribe or change your options at > > > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > This message was sent to: pamela@cardiacimplants.com > Unsubscribe or change your options at > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/pamela%40cardiacimp lant > s.com <http://s.com/> > > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > This message was sent to: n_macharia@yahoo.co.uk > Unsubscribe or change your options at > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/n_macharia%40yahoo. co.uk > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com > Unsubscribe or change your options at > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: otwomad@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otwomad%40gmail.com ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________ DFID, the Department for International Development: leading the British Government's fight against world poverty. Find out more about the major global poverty challenges and get the facts on what DFID is doing to fight them: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/aboutdfid/howwefightpoverty.asp. Subscribe to our e-bulletin: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/feedback ______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Peapod. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.peapod.co.uk/cleanmail
participants (20)
-
Barrack Otieno
-
Bill Kagai
-
Brian Longwe
-
Brian Munyao Longwe
-
Catherine Adeya
-
Crystal Watley
-
David Makali
-
David Otwoma
-
dmakali@yahoo.com
-
Foundation Piling Limited
-
Gakuru Alex
-
John Walubengo
-
n_macharia@yahoo.co.uk
-
Pamela
-
Rebecca Wanjiku
-
Solomon Mburu
-
Victor Gathara
-
Victor Maloi
-
Vitalis Olunga
-
Wainaina Mungai